PRIVATE BUSINESS

London Local Authorities Bill [Lords]

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [7 January].
	Ordered,
	That the promoters of the London Local Authorities Bill [Lords] may, notwithstanding anything in the Standing Orders or practice of this House, proceed with the Bill in the present Session; and the Petition for the Bill shall be deemed to have been deposited and all Standing Orders applicable to it shall be deemed to have been complied with;
	That, if the Bill is brought from the Lords in the present Session, a declaration signed by the agent shall be deposited in the Private Bill Office, stating that the Bill is the same in every respect as the Bill brought from the Lords in the last Session;
	That the Clerk in the Private Bill Office shall lay upon the Table of the House a certificate, that such a declaration has been deposited;
	That in the present session the Bill shall be deemed to have passed through every stage through which it passed in the last Session, and shall be recorded in the Journal of the House as having passed those stages;
	That no further fees shall be charged to such stages.—[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Oral Answers to Questions

WALES

The Secretary of State was asked—

Employment

Hywel Francis: What assessment he has made of recent employment trends in Wales.

Paul Flynn: If he will make a statement on the level of employment in Wales.

Peter Hain: I am sure that all hon. Members wish to join me in a tribute to John Charles, who was one of the greatest Welsh sportsmen of all time and an international football legend.
	The labour market in Wales continues to perform well, and better than the average for all United Kingdom economic regions.

Hywel Francis: I thank the Secretary of State for his reply. He will know of the recent TUC report, "Full Employment: The Next Steps". It identifies one of the key factors that contribute to economic inactivity in Britain as the inability of unpaid carers to access work opportunities. He will also know that there are 350,000 carers in Wales, of whom 22,000 are in his and my local authority area. Given that 80 per cent. are of working age and that 80 per cent. of those wish to work, will he consider meeting carers' organisations, especially Carers Wales, to explore strategies to assist carers, especially parent carers, to access learning, training and work opportunities?

Peter Hain: I shall be happy to meet such a delegation and I pay tribute to my hon. Friend's work on behalf of carers. It is especially welcome in our part of south Wales because of its long tradition of industrial illness and injury, which means that the caring role in areas such as Neath Port Talbot is vital.

Paul Flynn: The Government's employment record has been a triumph and follows the great success of the relocation over the years of civil service jobs to my constituency. We want more jobs to relocate there. Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is a major concern about the future of call-centre jobs and the possibility that they could be siphoned from Wales to the Asian subcontinent? Is that the fire in the basement of the Welsh economy?

Peter Hain: I acknowledge the danger of call-centre jobs going, for example, to India. However, they are being replaced by higher quality call-centre jobs and other jobs so that, as my hon. Friend said, Wales has the highest employment for decades and the lowest unemployment for 28 years. Unemployment in Wales soared to 168,000 under the Conservative Government; it is now only 41,000 and falling. The programmes that have helped to make unemployment fall will continue under our Labour Government.

Nigel Evans: Yes, unemployment is down, but, as I am sure hon. Members know, manufacturing employment is also down. There is also a skills shortage. Will the Secretary of State do two things? First, will he ensure that those who lose their manufacturing jobs have the opportunity to retrain for jobs where there are skills shortages? Secondly, I have heard a rumour that the Government are considering allowing 14 to 18-year-olds to leave school and do vocational training for part of the week. Will he ensure that such a provision is rolled out to Wales so that our youngsters have the opportunity for proper vocational education?

Peter Hain: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's conversion to examining the facts for a change. He acknowledges that unemployment is falling and employment is increasing. Economic inactivity is declining in Wales as a result of the excellent Labour policies that the Government and the Welsh Assembly Government are pursuing. However, the hon. Gentleman is right that a skills shortage persists and that it must be tackled. I would welcome any ideas that he has about that. Encouraging youngsters to spend at least part of their week in vocational work is a good idea, because it means that we will have more trained plumbers, tradesmen, bricklayers and electricians. That is part of the Government's programme. However, the £1 billion of cuts that the Tories are planning are not part of our programme. They would massacre tens of thousands of jobs in Wales.

Hywel Williams: Is the Secretary of State familiar with the report, "Not gone but forgotten", produced by Sheffield Hallam university on real unemployment in rural and north-west Wales? It shows that the average claimant count in Wales is 2.6 per cent. and that the figure for real unemployment is 11 per cent. The claimant count in Gwynedd is 2.7 per cent. and the real unemployment rate is 7.6 per cent. Conwy has a real unemployment rate 9.7 per cent., while Anglesey has a whopping real unemployment rate of 12.1 per cent. When will the Government be honest about the statistics, and when will they do something about those shocking and disgraceful unemployment figures?

Peter Hain: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will want to salute the fact that his constituency has experienced the tenth biggest fall in unemployment in Britain as a result of this Labour Government's excellent policies. He correctly identifies the still troubling amount of economic inactivity, which historically has been high in west Wales and the valleys. It is, however, starting to decrease for the first time in many years, and the programmes that we are introducing will continue that trend. I am sure that he wants to join us in driving that process forward.

Denzil Davies: My right hon. Friend may not have heard this yet, but in the past 24 hours a car component factory in my constituency, which is traditionally known as Camford Pressings, has announced about 90 redundancies. Many of those jobs will, in the vogue jargon, be "outsourced" to what have been described as low-cost economies in eastern Europe. Should the request be made, will he meet a small deputation from unions and management to see whether we can alleviate the consequences of that decision?

Peter Hain: I would be happy to meet such a delegation. I know that my right hon. Friend fights very hard, and I will join him in fighting for every job in his constituency and, indeed, throughout Wales. The difference between the current situation and that of the 1980s and 1990s is that if people are unfortunate enough to face losing their jobs there are now more opportunities to find alternative employment. We can at least look forward to that prospect, but we shall seek to safeguard those jobs and any others that he brings to my attention.

Richard Commission

David Burnside: If he will make a statement on the Richard commission on devolution in Wales.

Peter Hain: The Richard commission was established by the Welsh Assembly Government and I understand that it is expected to report to them at the end of March.

David Burnside: I know that the Secretary of State agrees with me that lessons learned from devolution should apply to the whole of the United Kingdom and that the lessons learned in Wales are particularly important. Does he agree that administrative devolution based on the Government of Wales Act 1998 has moved from the corporate local government model to an accountable committee system combined with a voluntary coalition with collective responsibility? Does he expect the Richard commission to recommend that approach as an improvement to the operation of the Welsh Assembly? Can my part of the United Kingdom and, indeed, any other part of the United Kingdom learn lessons from that? If the approach works and is accountable, it should be applied to all parts of the United Kingdom.

Peter Hain: If there is a lesson for his part of the United Kingdom—Northern Ireland—it is that people should work together to make devolution and the Northern Ireland Executive work, and the hon. Gentleman's party should encourage that process. Developments in Wales are interesting and worth studying. The settlement has evolved under Rhodri Morgan's Government, who have established Cabinet government that differs from the original corporate design, but it would take constitutional change to complete that process.

Martin Caton: Will my right hon. Friend confirm his previously stated position that the recommendations of the Richard commission should be judged by their impact on the governance of Wales and on service delivery in Wales, and not by other factors?

Peter Hain: I will favour change if a persuasive case is made for it. In particular, changing the arrangements governing the Assembly must produce a better quality of life for people in Wales. I am not in favour of constitutional "anoraking" and the chattering classes in Wales pushing forward constitutional change for its own sake. If there are changes that offer a better deal, we should adopt them.

Bill Wiggin: I join the Secretary of State in paying tribute to John Charles, who led Wales to its only appearance in the World cup finals.

Simon Thomas: So far.

Bill Wiggin: Indeed. Among his many achievements, John Charles played for Hereford United, where he scored more than 100 goals. His widow, Glenda, survives him, and our thoughts are with his family.
	Did the Secretary of State agree with the First Minister, Rhodri Morgan, when he said that further powers for the Welsh Assembly need not necessarily be approved in a referendum, because that does not tally with the Secretary of State's words on 5 November, when he said:
	"If we had an entirely different settlement proposed, say on the lines of the Scottish model with its own separate legal system and virtually everything except reserve matters devolved, I cannot see how that can be introduced by anything other than a referendum."?

Peter Hain: It is clear to me that if a full-blown Scottish solution—with a separate legal system, tax-varying powers and all the other accompanying powers—is proposed for Wales, it would require a referendum. However, there is much difference between that situation and the existing one, which would allow change to be introduced without necessarily requiring a referendum. That is the point and that is the position that Rhodri Morgan has endorsed.

Bill Wiggin: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that reply, because his remarks on Scotland have been a little confusing. On 13 January, he said:
	"I do not favour a Scottish solution. I will be absolutely frank about that. So in my mind that is ruled out."
	But on 27 January he said:
	"What about the Scots devolution settlement? It is not necessarily the right one for Wales which, unlike Scotland, has no separate legal system. On the other hand that is not to rule out a Scots option. We are speculating—nothing should be ruled out and, of course, nothing ruled in."
	Does the Secretary of States stand by that last remark?

Peter Hain: The only person who appears to be confused by those two statements is the hon. Gentleman. I have been clear that if we have a full-blown Scottish solution, including tax-raising powers and all, a referendum will be required. I said that that was in the realms of speculation because I have no idea what will be in the Richard commission's report. I do not know whether it will recommend that solution or another one. When the report is published, we will consider it. In the meantime, I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman, as shadow Secretary of State for Wales, was consulted by the shadow Chancellor about the cuts of £1 billion that are planned for the Welsh budget.

Bill Wiggin: I think that the Secretary of State ruled out many things in that answer. Has he ruled out a reduction in the number of MPs? On 13 January he said:
	"My bottom line for any change is I am not willing to countenance anything that alters the number of MPs. It has to remain at 40 and I am not touching with a barge pole the Scottish nightmare of reductions in numbers of MPs."
	It seems that he will not wait for Lord Richard to report: he has already made up his mind on that subject.

Peter Hain: I am entitled to express a point of view as Secretary of State for Wales and to defend the position of the 40 excellent MPs, including the Plaid Cymru Members, who are entitled to represent their constituents here, if they are lucky enough to win. I am puzzled by the question. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that under a Conservative Government he would welcome a reduction in the number of MPs in Wales?

Bill Wiggin: indicated assent.

Peter Hain: He nods. We should certainly wait for the Richard commission's report, but a number of key principles are involved, one of which is a referendum on a full-blown Scottish solution, and that is irrefutable. Another is that I do not believe that a persuasive case can be made for a reduction in the number of Welsh MPs, and I will continue to argue that case, even if he does not support it.

Llew Smith: Will my right hon. Friend accept that when the Labour Administration in the Assembly set up the Richard commission, they were in reality contracting out policy making to other political parties? Have the other political parties been equally generous and allowed us to make policies on their behalf? Will he be very surprised if the conclusions of the Richard commission reflect the views of Rhodri Morgan, the person who set it up?

Peter Hain: I have talked to Rhodri Morgan about that and I can assure my hon. Friend that he has no more idea of what will be in the Richard commission's report than I do. I also assure him that there will be no contracting out of the final decision on any changes recommended by the Welsh Assembly Government to Westminster. The decision will be taken in the first instance by our Labour Governments and, in the second, by this Parliament. We will retain the ultimate say on whatever changes need to be made as a result of the report's recommendations—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. There is far too much noise in the Chamber. It is very unfair on Members.

Prisoners

Angela Watkinson: How many Welsh residents are held in English prisons.

Don Touhig: Information on a prisoner's place of residence prior to sentence or remand in custody is not held centrally.
	At 30 November 2003, there were 1,580 prisoners in English prisons who had been committed or sentenced by courts in Wales.

Angela Watkinson: The Minister will appreciate the importance of family visits to prisoners serving custodial sentences as part of their rehabilitation and to prevent re-offending. Does he share my concern for those 1,580 prisoner families currently having to travel very long distances to make family visits? What plans are there to increase prison capacity in Wales?

Don Touhig: There are no prisons in mid and north Wales. Prisoners accommodated in England are probably closer to their homes than if they were in prisons in south Wales. There are currently about 2,400 places available in prisons in Wales. There are no plans to increase that number at present.

Lindsay Hoyle: If there were plans to extend accommodation by the building of new prisons, would my hon. Friend ensure that they were run by the public sector and not the private sector?

Don Touhig: Clearly, that is a matter for the Home Office, and I have no responsibility for it.

Elfyn Llwyd: As we are now in the period of the big conversation, will the Minister meet me briefly to have perhaps a medium-sized conversation about this subject? The truth is that at any given time 700 or 800 prisoners from north and mid-Wales are accommodated elsewhere. It is a human rights question. Given that the figures now stack up, and that the Prison Service has said that a prison is needed, may I meet him to describe precisely the views that people in north and mid-Wales seem to have on this issue?

Don Touhig: The Government continue to investigate options for providing further increases in capacity. I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, and I shall happily meet him at any time on it.

CAP Reform

Andrew George: What recent discussions he has had with Welsh Assembly Secretaries on common agricultural policy reform.

Don Touhig: My right hon. Friend has regular meetings with the First Secretary, and I meet the Assembly Secretary for Environment, Planning and Countryside to discuss a variety of issues. Indeed, we have a video conference planned for tomorrow.

Andrew George: I thank the Minister for that response, but is he aware of the impact of operating two agricultural support systems across the board? What assessment has he made of the potential market distortions, particularly on the Welsh border and also for cross-border farms? In his discussions with Welsh Assembly Secretaries, has he discussed how long the historic payments will be able to continue, because surely the transitional period must come to an end?

Don Touhig: My colleagues in the Welsh Assembly have undertaken a detailed analysis of the options, and the single farm payment is the one they have chosen. They believe that it is the right one, because it would certainly benefit the majority of farmers who have a large percentage of holdings right across Wales.
	The issue of cross-border matters is not yet resolved. Discussions are going on between the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and Ministers in the devolved Administrations. The Welsh Assembly's decision to go down the single payment route has been roundly welcomed by all the farming unions across Wales. I talked to farmers last week, and they certainly welcomed it.

Albert Owen: At the heart of CAP reform is a fairer and more equitable distribution of prices and profits. What discussion has my hon. Friend had with his colleagues in DEFRA and the Welsh Assembly Government about the price consumers pay for milk and the price paid to farmers? The current balance means that there is very little investment in the farming industry in Wales, and the consumer is being ripped off.

Don Touhig: I understand my hon. Friend's point. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I travel around Wales, we often meet farmers and members of farmers' unions who complain about the price they are obtaining from the major suppliers—the supermarkets and so on. I understand that farmers' unions have been taking the issue up very strongly, and I know that my hon. Friend is also very concerned about it. We must keep the matter under review and make sure that farmers secure a good deal for the milk they produce.

Roger Williams: The mid-term review goes on, but the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has failed to introduce the fallen stock scheme and has postponed the abolition of the over-30 month scheme. Will the Minister have discussions with his ministerial colleagues in DEFRA about those issues, because Welsh farmers cannot plan for the future?

Don Touhig: My impression is that farming in Wales is much more confident than it was a year ago—indeed, farm incomes are increasing. I take on board the point that the hon. Gentleman makes and, of course, I have ongoing discussions with my colleagues in the Assembly who have responsibility for those matters and my colleagues in DEFRA. The matters figure in our discussions at all times.

Digital Television

Wayne David: What discussions he has had with ministerial colleagues about the provision of digital television in Wales.

Peter Hain: I have had regular discussions, because I am keen to see digital coverage right across Wales as soon as possible.

Wayne David: The Secretary of State will be aware that many people in south Wales, such as those in the Rhymney valley, for example, cannot get Channel 4, five or digital television. Will he do everything possible to make it absolutely certain that Wales will be one of the areas that switch to digital as quickly as possible?

Peter Hain: I assure my hon. Friend that I join him in that objective because I am keen to see Wales become the first fully digital part of the United Kingdom. Indeed, Greg Dyke, the former director-general, suggested that to me, and we are taking the matter forward.

Lembit �pik: The Labour First Minister, Rhodri Morgan, has asked the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport
	to ensure that those who rely on digital satellite do not need to subscribe to a pay-TV service to receive public service
	broadcasting, and Liberal Democrats agree. Will the Secretary of State commit himself to ensuring that the thousands of Welsh viewers who find themselves in that situation can sign up to the Solus card scheme so that they do not have to subscribe to private broadcasters such as Sky to access public service broadcasting?

Peter Hain: The hon. Gentleman has a persuasive case to make, and I want digital television to be extended to his constituency as well. May I take this opportunity to thank him for his efforts in helping to defend the earth from attack from asteroids through the conference that he is organising? He is doing a great service for the House and the people of Great Britain.

Ian Lucas: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in my constituency of Wrexham it is possible to access the BBC2W channel only by subscribing to Sky and Rupert Murdoch? Does he agree that that is a completely unacceptable state of affairs and that the BBC, as a matter of urgency, should supply digital television through an alternative source?

Peter Hain: I know that the BBC wants to supply digital television through whatever sources it can to whoever they can get it to throughout Wales. I shall certainly ensure that the controller of BBC Wales is aware of my hon. Friend's concerns about that matter.

Farming

Andrew Selous: What action the Government are taking to help the farming industry in Wales.

Don Touhig: The UK Government, in partnership with the Welsh Assembly, which plays a crucial role, negotiate farming issues at EU level that will continue to encourage prosperity in the Welsh farming industry. The recent Welsh Assembly strategy to implement common agricultural policy reform is a positive result of the negotiations.

Andrew Selous: Farmers in Wales receive the lowest milk price in the European Union, with farm-gate prices having fallen from 26p per litre in 1996 to 18p per litre today. On top of that, the CAP reform that the Government negotiated will have an adverse effect on milk production. What is the Minister doing to ensure that Welsh dairy farmers receive a price for their milk that is greater than the cost of production?

Don Touhig: The decision to implement CAP reform in Wales has been widely welcomed throughout Wales by the farming community, the farming unionsthe Farmers Union of Wales and the National Farmers Unionand the Country Landowners Association. Farming has had a difficult time over the past couple of years. The hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin) recently asked me questions about farm incomes, and I can tell him that they have gone up by 2,000 to more than 16,000 in the current year. That is not high enough, but the figure is moving in the right direction. When I had discussions at an agricultural college in Ruthin in north-east Wales last week, I was encouraged by the response of farmers and those who work in the industry about their future. There is growing encouragement. [Hon. Members: What about milk?] I shall come to milk

Mr. Speaker: Order. May I stop the Minister? His answer has been too long.

Gareth Thomas: My hon. Friend has already referred to the meeting that he had in my constituency last week at Llysfasi agricultural college. Incidentally, I hope that he enjoyed the rather splendid lunch that was offered. Does he recall the view of the experts present that the prospects for agriculture in Wales had improved greatly and that CAP reform negotiations were particularly good as far as Welsh farmers were concerned?

Don Touhig: Yes, I very much enjoyed the visit to the college and I had a splendid lunch. I thank my hon. Friend and the college staff for providing it; it was excellent. I certainly had a good visit to the first-class milking parlour at the college, and I was greatly encouraged by what I learned from those who operate the parlour. There is a good future for farmers working together in partnership with the Labour Government. As we all know, farmers do better under a Labour Government.

PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked

Engagements

Sue Doughty: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 25 February.

Tony Blair: This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I will have further such meetings later today.

Sue Doughty: This morning in Guildford, I visited the picket line of the Association of University Teachers. Guildford is a high-cost area where teachers, lecturers, health care professionals and other public sector graduates are hard to recruit and retain. Does the Prime Minister accept that massively increasing student debts will make the problem much worse?

Tony Blair: I hope that the hon. Lady understands that the purpose of the proposals that we have put forward for higher education is to get more money into the universities and the university system so that they can, for example, pay their lecturers better. That is in addition to the money that we are putting into our education system. For example, in her local education authority, we are allocating about 600 per pupil more in real terms than a few years ago. That is far more than the Liberal Democrats ever asked us to do. But we could not put all that additional money into schools and, indeed, into our universities unless we changed the system of university funding to make it fair for the student, fair for the family and fair for the taxpayer.

Kali Mountford: Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating Chief Superintendent John Holt on the commitment that he has shown to community policing? From today, there will be 19 community safety officers in my area, in addition to a full complement of community beat officers and some very lively and active special constables[Hon. Members: Oh!] Are not those people the very heart of policing and the heart of the community? Is not that the level of policing that communities want, and not just the headline policing that we so often see? Will my right hon. Friend encourage divisional commanders such as that one?

Tony Blair: I am delighted that special constables are lively and active in my hon. Friend's area; I hope that they are so throughout the country. There are about 11,000 special constables in the country but, in addition, as she knows, there are more than 3,000 community support officers and record numbers of police today. The reason is that we have managed to increase the Home Office budget significantly over the past few years. We will carry on increasing that budget, and I can tell the House the policy that we will not adopt, which is to freeze the Home Office budget in cash terms, which would mean a real-terms cutthe policy of the Conservative partyand, obviously, fewer police.

Michael Howard: In his manifesto, the Prime Minister promised that there would be no excessive council tax increases. Under his Government, council tax has gone up by an average of 60 per cent. Why has he not kept his promise?

Tony Blair: We have kept our promise to fund councils[Hon. Members: No.] Yes. In the end, what we do from central Government is allocate a certain amount of grant from central to local government. That grant has gone up 30 per cent. in real terms compared with when the right hon. and learned Gentleman was in office under the last Conservative Government; there was then a cut of 7 per cent. Let me just tell him that, this year, every single council will receive a real-terms, above-inflation increase in the grant from central Government. It is for councils to set their tax, but there is absolutely no reason for double-digit tax increases this year.

Michael Howard: One of the main reasons for the 60 per cent. rise in council tax under this Government lies in the burdens imposed on local authorities by this Governmentincreases in national insurance contributions, the tax hit on pension funds, the mountain of red tape associated with so-called best value and comprehensive performance assessments, and much more. Are not the burdens imposed by the Prime Minister's Government the main reason why council tax has gone up by 60 per cent. since Labour came to power?

Tony Blair: No, they are not. Incidentally, let me also say to the House that we will take no lessons on waste in local government from the person who introduced the poll tax.
	In relation to council tax, there is absolutely no reason for high council tax increases this year. Last November, the Local Government Association said that it thought that there was a shortfall of about 800 million. We then provided an extra 760 million, which is why many councils are now posting increases below the rate of inflation, or of less than 5 per cent. There is no reason why there should be the rises in council tax of previous years. The fact is that we are increasing the amount of money that we give to local authorities. In the end, the increases are up to them, but they should bear in mind the fact that for many people council tax increases are a burden to bear, which is why we have increased the subvention to them.

Michael Howard: Why will not the Prime Minister, just for once, accept some responsibility? Let us take an example of what has happened under his Government; let us take Sedgefield, his constituency. It has the second highest council tax in the country. It has a Labour-controlled district council, a Labour-controlled county council and a Labour Government. It even has a Labour Member of Parliament. Is none of them responsible for the council tax in Sedgefield?

Tony Blair: Of course, when the right hon. and learned Gentleman refers to band D council tax in Sedgefield[Interruption.] No, no; the average council tax in Labour areas is actually below that of Conservative areas. [Hon. Members: No] Oh yes, it is.
	It must obviously be the case that the amount of council tax is at least in partsurely the right hon. and learned Gentleman will accept thislinked to the amount of money that central Government give to local government. Now, it is beyond doubt that we are increasing the amount of money from central Government to local government. What is the right hon. and learned Gentleman's policy? We saw that described[Interruption.] Let us just work out what would happen if we adopted his policy. His policy is for a real-terms cut in local government spending with a cash freeze that would mean 2.5 billion off local government support. That is a 10 per cent. increase in the council tax alone.

Jeff Ennis: Is the Prime Minister aware that Mr. Peter Finnegan, from Bolton-on-Dearne in my constituency, has recently completed a 50-day vigil to protest against the amount of national health service funding currently going to children's hospices? Is he aware that children's hospices receive on average only 7 per cent. of their funding through the NHS, whereas adult hospices receive more than 35 per cent. of their funding through the NHS? Does he agree that that funding differential is far too great and that the Government should seriously consider putting more money where it is neededinto children's hospices?

Tony Blair: It is obviously important that we try to increase the amount of support that we give to hospices for both adults and children. However, I know that my hon. Friend will recognise that there has been a massive increase in the amount of investment going into the national health service. In fields such as the care of children with cancer, there has been a huge increase in support, investment, consultants and equipment. It is important that we do what we can for hospices, but hospices are part of a broader pattern of health care treatment in this country. I hope that my hon. Friend recognises that increases in investment are delivering real improvements in the national health service.

Charles Kennedy: Can the Prime Minister clarify whether his Government are currently in negotiations with the Government of Tanzania over our paying them to accept failed Somali asylum seekers from Britain?

Tony Blair: We are in negotiations with the Tanzanian Government on how we can process claims for asylum nearer to the country of origin

Bernard Jenkin: Offshore!

Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Jenkin, I expect better from you[Interruption.] Order. I am not responsible for the answers of the Prime Minister, but I am responsible for good order in the House. I will not have this shouting.

Tony Blair: If anyone thinks that this is the fantasy island, they are wrong. Let me point out to the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy) and to the Conservatives that if we get an agreement on this provision, it will allow us to process some of the claims, but it could not conceivably deal with the main issue of asylum.

Charles Kennedy: In the light of that answer, does the Prime Minister recognise that this could be the beginning of an international trade in displaced people? That would be a very bad precedent to set. Will he therefore tell the House whether, in addition to those negotiations, he is negotiating with the Governments of any other countries on this issue?

Tony Blair: I honestly cannot understand the objection to seeing whether it is possible, if people are going to make asylum claims and begin their asylum journey close to the country of origin, to try to process some of those claims there. That is what we are negotiating with the Tanzanian Government, and those negotiations are being conducted in a perfectly amicable atmosphere. I do not think that there is any question of this ending up in a trade of displaced people. That is an absurd thing to say. I repeat, for the benefit of the Conservatives, that even if we manage to establish some of these centres, there is no way in which they can possibly deal with the bulk of the asylum problem. That has to be dealt with by the measures that we take here.

Kevin Barron: My right hon. Friend will be aware that the National Institute for Clinical Excellence published guidelines this morning on the treatment of infertility in the national health service. The Secretary of State for Health responded by saying that, as far as the recommendation for three interventions of in vitro fertilisation was concerned, one such intervention would be available throughout the country by April next year. That should be greatly welcomed as it will stop the postcode prescribing that we have had for many years. Will my right hon. Friend tell us when we are likely to see full implementation of the NICE guidelines?

Tony Blair: We hope that over the next couple of years we shall see at least very substantial progress towards implementation of the full NICE guidelines, and that they will allow us to end the current postcode lottery, as my right hon. Friend says. The first steps towards that will be taken within the next year. This will increase provision of IVF for people in their local area. In the longer term, however, we think that we can extend it even further, but we will release details of that when we are ready to do so.

Tom Brake: Can the Prime Minister confirm whether the licensing guidelines for weapons components are the same as those for weapons systems? If they are not, as the report published today by Oxfam, Amnesty International and the International Action Network on Small Arms suggests, will he explain why it is unacceptable to export weapons systems to certain countries while it is acceptable to export weapons components that can be assembled into weapons systems?

Tony Blair: My understanding is that there are common criteria that cover both types of purchase and export. As a result of the intervention of this Government, this country now has about the toughest rules in Europe on the export of such weapons and weapons systems. I do not agree with the position taken by the Liberal Democrats and some non-governmental organisations, which would effectively mean that we could not export weapons at all.

Jim Cunningham: I welcome the fact that my right hon. Friend and colleague, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, is introducing new measures to deal with the mis-selling of pensions and with companies that abuse their pension schemes. I know that my Coventry colleagues will agree with my drawing to the Prime Minister's attention the plight of Massey Ferguson workers who were shamefully treated by that company after long years of service. I notice, however, that there seems to be an omission in the proposals in relation to pension holidays. Will the Prime Minister comment on that?

Tony Blair: I can say two things to my hon. Friend. First, as a result of the measures that we are introducing, there will be a pension protection fund and a pensions regulator who will focus on tackling fraud, bad governance and poor administration. In addition, the Pension Commission will report back in due course on the private pensions regime. I totally understand the position of people who have seen their pension fund destroyed and their ability to get a good pension limited by what has happened to their company. It is precisely for that reason that we are introducing the legislation.

Michael Howard: On Sunday, the Prime Minister announced with great fanfare that he was going to provide head teachers with guidance that would give them, specifically, the power to do random drug testing in their schools. Was he aware that they had the power and had already been given the guidance?

Tony Blair: I am afraid that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is wrong; the guidance is to be issued next week.

Michael Howard: The Prime Minister really ought to have a word with his Secretary of State for Education and Skills, because the guidance had been issued by the Department for Education and Skills just six days before the Prime Minister's interview. It urged extreme caution, causing the Secondary Heads Association to say that heads could conclude only that they should not touch random testing with a bargepole. Six days later, the Prime Minister blundered in, sounding very enthusiastic, and saying, I back random drug testing in our schools. Is it any wonder that teacher representatives say that there is complete and utter confusion about the policy?

Tony Blair: I am sorry that the right hon. and learned Gentleman appears to be against the policy; I think that he is wrong. [Interruption.] He says that he is not against the policy. So, he is in favour of the policy, but simply wanted to make the point about last week rather than next week. What a pathetic piece of opportunism. If we are both in favour of the policy, let us agree that it is a good idea.

Michael Howard: I am not going to take any lectures about opportunism from a Prime Minister who has based his whole career on opportunism. There he sits, Mr. Opportunism himself. I am in favour of the policy, but I am also in favour of a bit of competence in Government. I expect the Prime Minister to know whether the Department for Education and Skills has issued guidance. After nearly seven years in the job, is it not time that he realised that he is being paid to govern our country, not to chase newspaper headlines?

Tony Blair: After about seven weeks as Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. and learned Gentleman should learn how to make a point sensibly. If he is in favour of the policy, let us work out how we make it work. Incidentally, he said in his opening question that teachers are all against the policy, but let me read what the head of the National Association[Interruption.] I thought that he was reading out the quotation because he was against the policy. Now that we understand that he is in favour of it, let me tell him what the National Association of Head Teachers says:
	It would give heads another weapon in their fight against drugs being pushed or used in their schools.
	The policy is an addition to allowing police officers in certain schools; it is an addition to drug education officers; and it is an addition to the largest ever increase in education spending. So, the next time that we have a debate about this, why not have it on the merits of the policy?

Betty Williams: At the first north Wales criminal justice board conference on 18 September in Llandudno, which is in my constituency as my right hon. Friend will know, the chair of the board, Mr. John Grant Jones OBE, drew attention to the difference between the perception of levels of crime and the actual situation. Does my right hon. Friend agree that when we use crime statistics we should do so in a reasonable but, more importantly, a responsible manner?

Tony Blair: My hon. Friend is of course right. According to the British crime survey, crime has fallen significantly over the past few years, but it is obviously still a huge problem for people who are facing it. That is why we introduced new measures in the Criminal Justice Act 2003 and those on antisocial behaviour, and why we have the largest ever number of police officers in this country.
	I stress again the importance of ensuring that we invest in the criminal justice system and in additional numbers of police. Conservative policy is to freeze that in cash terms. Let me emphasise what that would mean: thousands fewer police officers in Britain. [Interruption.] I am afraid that that is their policy, and they are stuck with it.

Andrew Murrison: The National Village Halls Forum will today deliver a petition to No. 10 Downing street signed by 37,000 people, including 4,000 from Wiltshire, who are concerned about the future funding of a vital rural resource. Village halls have been strapped for cash since 1997 as lottery money has been diverted to other causes. Will the Prime Minister commend the efforts of the National Village Halls Forum in bringing an important issue to our attention? What will he do to make sure that village halls get a better deal, particularly in the light of the incipient merger between the new opportunities fund and the community fund?

Tony Blair: I cannot answer specifically the precise point on village hall funding, although I will make sure that the hon. Gentleman gets an answer on it. Of course, I commend the work of the pensioners forum on village halls[Hon. Members: What?] Sorry. The whole point about extra spending, however, whether on this or on any other matter, is that his party has now said that it will cut in real terms all that spending. It is no use him or any other Back-Bench or Front-Bench Conservative Member calling for more money when the shadow Chancellor has said that he will cut the money.

Derek Wyatt: In July 2002, the steel workers at Allied Steel and Wire Sheerness and Allied Steel and Wire Cardiff were made redundant and their occupational pension schemes placed into administration. Across the House, 120 MPs represent more than 200 occupational pension schemes that are also either in deficit or in administration. Will my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister institute a public inquiry so that we can find out exactly what are the debts in those 200 schemes, and what the solutions could be, so that we can finally put this problem to rest?

Tony Blair: First, obviously, I am aware of the situation being faced by members of Allied Steel and Wire pension schemes. I have immense sympathy for them, other scheme members and other people in a similar position. We are looking at what we can do to help. My hon. Friend will know, however, that a court proceeding is currently under way, and that the pension protection fund Bill is going through the House of Commons. Obviously, we will examine carefully the concerns that he and others have raised.

Teddy Taylor: While I appreciate that the Prime Minister has many of the world's problems to resolve, can he give some priority this week to a crisis in Southend-on-Sea, where the local council has been told in a census that its population has declined significantly, with substantial problems for finance, when all the other evidence shows that that is wrong? Is he aware, in particular, that the report says that we have 1,000 fewer houses than the number that are paying council tax, and that in four wards beside where I live, there are many fewer people living than the number on the voters' register? Is not there a danger for the Government that if one of their highly paid quangos cannot calculate the number of people living in Southend-on-Sea, confidence will be undermined in the Government's wider policies?

Tony Blair: I understand that the Office for National Statistics has met Southend-on-Sea council to discuss its concerns about the census results for Southend. Apparently, it is working with Southend-on-Sea council and conducting a study to improve understanding of the difficulties in estimating accurately the local population. That includes an analysis of the local data. The hon. Gentleman will understand that I do not wish to prejudge those findings.

Jane Griffiths: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. [Hon. Members: Hear, Hear.] I am enjoying this.
	The Prime Minister will know that the Children's Fund is to see a reduction in its budget. Can he offer some assurance to families in Lower Caversham in my constituency, where the Children's Fund has been doing tremendous work?

Tony Blair: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that the Children's Fund has done tremendous work. I shall look at the issue that she raises in relation to the position in her constituency.

Bob Russell: Is the Prime Minister content that hundreds of thousands of children are living in overcrowded accommodation, and that new Labour, in six years, has built just 1,343 council houses? In contrast, the Thatcher Government, in their first six years, built 365,000 council houses. Does he agree that if new Labour had built as many council houses as the Thatcher Government, hundreds of thousands of children would not be living in overcrowded accommodation?

Tony Blair: It is not simply a matter of the number of council houses, is it? It is also to do with the overall housing budget, which is spent in many areas involving, for instance, registered landlords and housing associations. That budget has actually doubled over the past few years. But no, I am not content with the situation, which is why we want to increase the housing budget still furtheralthough the hon. Gentleman should recognise, surely, that we have already increased it substantially. Since we are debating Labour and Conservative policies as a result of this question, I might add that the Conservatives would freeze, in cash terms, the amount going to housing.

Eric Joyce: An employer in my constituency recently advertised jobs for 12 chefs, but has not managed to fill any of the vacancies. As my right hon. Friend knows, Scotland faces a significant demographic challenge. Does he agree that organised migration has an important part to play in helping to sort that out?

Tony Blair: It must obviously be organised, and it must be subject to proper laws and rules, but my hon. Friend is right to say that we should never denigrate migration to this country. It contributes a massive amount to our economy. It is important that we change the asylum system, for example, and that is exactly what we have done. It is important that we have proper rules for migration. But we should never decry the amount that migrants bring to our economy, and the work that they do.

Gaia House

Anthony Steen: If he will visit Gaia House near Totnes.

Tony Blair: I have no current plans to do so. Gaia House is a centre that offers insight and meditation, and zen retreats throughout the year, so this is an answer that, obviously, I shall keep under review.

Anthony Steen: If the Prime Minister did visit this Buddhist retreat, he would have plenty of time to reflect on how to protect council tax payers from Liberal Democrat councils that wish to increase council tax, as Torbay council does, by six times the rate of inflation. The council has refused to cut bureaucracy. It spends money on surveys to establish how many tombs there are in Torbay's cemeteriesfor health and safety reasonsrather than on protecting and maintaining social services for the living. What task will the Prime Minister take on to protect the weakest and most vulnerable in Torbay from the Liberal council?

Tony Blair: I obviously would be able to reflect on all that, but I think I would gain another insight as well. It is obviously true that we have hugely increased the amount of money we have given to Devon council

Anthony Steen: And Torbay?

Tony Blair: Yes, Torbay too. My briefing mentions South Hams, the hon. Gentleman's own local authority

Anthony Steen: As well as Torbay?

Tony Blair: Yes. The great thing is that we have increased the money for Devon, Torbay and South Hams. I think that probably the insight I would gain after this retreat would be Vote Labour.

Engagements

David Clelland: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Marks and Spencer opened its first-ever Lifestyle store in Gateshead yesterday, creating 210 jobs? We welcome that further demonstration of confidence in the north-east by Marks and Spencer, but, as my right hon. Friend knows, what the region desperately needs is more investment in research and development, and the kind of skilled jobs that often result from Government procurement programmes. We also eagerly await the promised redistribution of 20,000 civil service jobs away from the south-east and into the regions. I acknowledge the tremendous progress that has been made in the creation of employment and reduction of unemployment in my region under my right hon. Friend's Government, but what further progress can we hope to see in the coming months and years?

Tony Blair: I think that it is essential, first, to back the regional development agency, One NorthEast, which, as my hon. Friend knows, is making precisely that sort of effort to bring manufacturing and other industry into the area, and also ensuring that we have the right skills base there. That is immensely important. The second essential thing, as my hon. Friend implied, is to go on running the economy in an effective and stable way so that we have high levels of employment and low levels of unemployment. He will know, as I do, that in the north-east any political debate of 15 or 20 years ago would have centred on the huge levels of unemployment. It is a tribute, surely, to the management of the economy under this Chancellor, and to this Government's record, that we have seen in the past seven years dramatic reductions in unemployment, dramatic rises in employment and the best-run economy of any major industrialised country.

David Trimble: The Prime Minister will know of last Friday's kidnap from a Belfast city centre bar, which, but for the police, would have resulted in a murder. That kidnap was the work of mainstream republicans, who are led by the persons who have been returned here to serve as Members for Mid-Ulster and for Belfast, West. The Prime Minister will also know of the Irish Justice Minister's description of their vomit-making hypocrisy. Against that, the response of the Prime Minister's Government yesterday is seen by people in Northern Ireland as being rank moral cowardice. It is utterly unreasonable to expect us to remain in discussions with these people in these circumstances, and I have to tell the Prime Minister that unless he can summon up the courage to act on this matter within the next few days, I and my colleagues will take steps next Monday to bring that process to an end.

Tony Blair: For obvious reasons, as the right hon. Gentleman will surely understand, there is a limit to what I can say about any individual case that is being investigated by the police at the present time, and in respect of which charges will be laid, so I have to start with that qualification.
	Secondly, let me say very clearly, not just to Sinn Fein but to the IRA, that we have for a significant period of time said through the Good Friday agreement that these people are entitled to participate in the democratic process, but that they are able to do so only if they are fully part of the democratic club. One cannot talk about human rights for people one day and beat human rights out of them the nextthat is not acceptable.
	We will have to consider, in the light of what the police find, what we then do. But I have said to the right hon. Gentleman before and I say againindeed, this is the reason why we have had suspension of the institutions for the past year or morethat there will not be any compromise on this point. People cannot be part of a democratic process unless they abide by the rules of democracy. I am not going to comment on the individual case, but I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that if it is shown to be the mainstream IRA that has done this thing, action will obviously have to follow.

School Admissions (Prohibition of Religious Discrimination)

Evan Harris: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to prohibit discrimination on religious grounds in admissions to maintained schools.
	I begin by welcoming the opportunity to discuss this issue in the House. I accept that it is a controversial issue that has implications for the way in which we organise our school system and for race relations, among other things. I am very keen to put on the record my interest in this issue as an honorary associate of the National Secular Society. In terms of my own education, I am Jewish by background but I went to Church of England schools.
	This Bill is not about whether faith schools are good or bad schools. Currently, faith schools are mainly voluntary aided. Although the Church or religion concerned does not pay the school's salaries or running costs, it is allowed to run its own admission policy independent of the local education authority. Where the school is over-subscribed, it is allowed to admit only children of a specific religion. Indeed, the contribution that religions make to schools relates only to capital costs, and has been reduced from 20 per cent. to 10 per cent.
	The Bill would not close faith schools, convert them to community status or prevent them from being run with a religious ethos, but it would prevent them from selecting by, or discriminating on the basis of, religious background. There are several reasons for seeking to do that. First, it is self-evident that such discrimination against children is wrong in and of itself. Why should a child living next to a school be excluded from it, even though his neighbourhood friends attend it, solely because he or his parents either have the wrong religion or no religionor, indeed, because his parents are unable sufficiently to persuade the school that they are religious enough to justify their child's attendance? Why should a child be punished by being prevented from attending a school, which they would otherwise have an opportunity to go to, on the basis of the views or culture of his or her parents? Why should the child be denied fair treatment in school admissions?
	Such criteria also encourage hypocrisy, as many in the Church and other religions recognise, when parents become church attenders purely to get their child into the local school. A recent newspaper report stated:
	Parents who want children to go to a top Church of England school face having to 'sign in' for 48 church services a year. They must present signed notes from vicars to prove they have worshipped the necessary number of times. Headmaster the Rev. Peter Shepherd's crackdown at Canon Slade secondary school in Bolton is in apparent defiance of C of E policy allowing local children . . . to be admitted . . . He defended his actions, saying demand for places . . . had rocketed. 'We have to find ways of being more discriminating', he said.
	Those words speak for themselves.
	Even if the application of such criteria causes long-lasting religious adherence, should the state be sanctioning religious recruitment by permitting those sorts of admissions policies in state schools? Is it right to segregate children according to their religion? The Cantle report into the causes of riots in northern cities expressed clear concerns about the make-up of many of the state secondary schoolsin this case, Church of England schoolsin the area, which were nearly 100 per cent. white, as children were bussed across cities at the taxpayer's expense despite the wide mix of races and religions in the catchment area. On the basis of observations on visits, the Cantle report said:
	We . . . found other schools where the intake was almost 100 per cent. of one ethnic background. This was often the result of the school's catchment area being composed of one particular ethnic make-up but that it could also arise as a result of the school's admission policy. One C of E school . . . had a policy whereby pupils had to produce a letter from their local vicar to prove that they and their parents were regular church goers. Consequently, Muslims rarely bothered to apply to send their children to the school and were effectively excluded from it.
	I understand that the Government and many hon. Members supported the conclusions of that report.
	If we are to stop the sort of racial segregation that we have witnessed in some cities we must either stop religious schools existing, ora lesser stepstop them segregating and discriminating on religious grounds. Have we learned nothing from Northern Ireland, where we know that if children do not mix in school it becomes much harderthough not impossibleto tackle in-built and inculcated prejudice?
	Why should religious parents, who tend to be more middle class, be allowed a greater choice of schools than non-religious parents? Community schools do not give preference to atheists or the non-religious, so why should state-funded schools discriminate? The disadvantage to non-religious parents in respect of the choice of school increases with every new faith school that is permitted to select on the basis of religious adherence.
	It has been argued that faith schools are better schools and it is alleged that the results demonstrate it. However, that has always been alleged to be the product of their ethos rather than selection. If people and hon. Members who oppose the measure believe that faith schools are better schools because of the way in which they are organised, why not make it clear that they should not use selection as a meansdirectly or indirectly, advertently or inadvertentlyof selecting on a better educational background or on a social class basis?
	Answers to parliamentary questions provide clear evidence that the proportion of children eligible for free school meals is significantly lower, on average, in faith schools than in community schools. That is clearly a factor in faith schools achieving better results, regardless of their social mix. Therefore, it is clear that the policy cannot be defended on the basis of good results.
	Many religions share the concerns that I have raised. Although they want their own schools, they do not feel the need to discriminate and segregate. I do not believe that support in public opinion is needed before one can propose something that is right, but I will always point it out when public opinion supports a measure. Polls show that up to 80 per cent. of people feel that it is wrong for state schools to select on religious grounds. When children are asked whether they feel any religious adherence, the majority say that they do not. They do not see why selection should be made on the basis of their religious beliefor on the basis of the belief that their parents have, or claim.
	There are strong argumentsimproved race relations, better mixing, and non-discriminationfor a ban on state schools being able to allow discrimination on religious grounds in their admissions criteria.
	I commend the Bill to the House.

Kevin McNamara: I rise to oppose the Bill, based on my experiences as a practising Catholic, as someone who was taught by the Irish Christian BrothersI shall take those stigmata to my graveand as a former teacher in a Catholic school, where I am now a governor. As a Member of Parliament for the past 38 years, I have witnessed numerous examples of faith schools' commitment and dedication to the achievement of excellence, both in school and in the wider community.
	I feel it necessary to express my opposition to this Bill as it aims to undermine one of the longest established traditions in our education systemthat children should be educated in accordance with the wishes of their parents, as far as is compatible with the effective and efficient use of resources. I believe that the attack on faith schools, which have gained a reputation for high educational standards, should be disregarded. The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) is seeking to disown the view that respect and tolerance of different religious beliefs are essential for positive community cohesion.
	In introducing this Bill, the hon. Gentleman shows that he is clearly not interested in school standards. He is not even interested in the fact that many parents want the choice to send their children to a faith school, be it Catholic, Church of England, other Christian denomination, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu or Sikh. However, his true intentions are uncovered in his association with the National Secular Society. His ultimate goal is to impose secular dogma on all children, regardless of the wishes of their parents. He camouflages his main objective in this Bill, knowing full well the profound implications that it would have on faith schools.
	My first concern surrounds the assault on human rights mounted by the hon. Gentleman. We live in a multicultural, multi-faith society, and yet the hon. Gentleman is attempting to restrict the general principle that children should be educated in accordance with the wishes of their parents. That is guaranteed in the protocol to the European convention on human rights and in legislation passed by this House. Furthermore, he intends to restrict the right to a religious education that is enshrined in the UN universal declaration of human rights and the declaration of the rights of the child. These instruments outline the concepts that parents are, first and foremost, educators of their children, and that the state should be a facilitator to ensure that all children, as far as is practical, can be educated in line with their parents' religious and philosophical convictions.
	I find it surprising that a Liberal should wish to take away such rights. It is often stated that faith schools are exclusivea view also held by the Liberal Democrat spokesman on education, the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis). He has stated his belief that faith schools
	have become exclusive, erecting barriers against children who cannot meet the faith test.
	However, if he were to look at the findings of the Catholic education service census of 2003 he would see that 18 per cent.nearly one in fiveof pupils attending Catholic schools are non-Catholics. Is that what Liberal Democrats mean when they label faith schools exclusive and talk about faith tests?
	By basing the Bill on the false premise of exclusivity, the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon denies the rights of many non-Catholic or non-Christian parents, or parents of other faiths, who want to send their children to Catholic or other faith schools because they are attracted to the robust spiritual and moral value systems of such schools. He would undermine schools that take a proactive approach to inclusiveness and respect for religious beliefs. To see that, we have only to study the findings of a recent survey of ethnic minority students in Catholic secondary schools, which highlighted the fact that 80 per cent. of them believe that their schools encourage respect for people of different races and religions.
	The guidance of my Church shows a desire for inclusion and a respect for diversity. Catholic secondary schools have a higher percentage of black pupils than other maintained schools. If the hon. Gentleman were to read the bishops' document, Catholic Schools and Other Faiths, he would see that it highlights the need both to respect other faiths and have an understanding between the Catholic faith and other faiths. All other faith schools uphold the same philosophy in relation to their beliefs and understandings.
	My second concern is about educational standards. The Bill would do nothing to improve educational achievement in our schools; its only achievement would be to unpick one of the most successful aspects of our education systemfaith schools, which have gained a reputation for high standards and educational achievement. I should have thought that all Members would applaud that, rather than seeking to destroy it.
	The available evidence shows that, in general, attainment in Catholic schools is higher compared with other sectors. Furthermore, despite accusations about selection, Catholic schools cater for pupils with greater levels of poverty. An analysis of GCSE results from 1966 to 2001 for both 1118 schools and 1116 schools found that, for nearly all levels of disadvantage, Catholic schools had a higher percentage of pupils achieving the required standard in each year. When something is successful we should support it and expand best practice, not attack it.
	My third concern is centred on the opportunism of the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon in trying to exploit today's uncertain world climate. He is jealously pursuing his own secular agenda by trying to divorce the teachings of different religions from our society. By doing so, he risks creating the exclusion and alienation of certain communities that he claims to be trying to prevent.
	It is easy to place the blame for horrific incidents such as 11 September, the disgraceful incidents around Holy Cross primary school and the racially motivated violence in some of our northern towns at the door of religion. To do so is a mistake, however. Such events are born of ignorance, prejudice, poverty and fear of the unknown, not of religion. If we take the route advocated by the hon. Gentleman, it can only increase prejudice and bigotry.
	The UK is rich in diversityfrom which our society has significantly benefited. The 2001 census found that 77 per cent. of people belonged to a religion, so it is right for the state to act as a facilitator to enable everyone to live out their religious beliefs in public as well as in private. Faith schools are based on the value of universal respect. Despite the claims made about their contribution to segregation, there is no evidence to support the view that they contribute to social segregation in this country.
	In the teaching of my own and other religions, we talk of loving strangers and of loving our neighbour as ourselves. Such values are at the heart of Christian teaching and of faith schools, Muslim schools and Jewish schools. The Catholic bishops stated in the document, Catholic Schools and Other Faiths, that Catholic schools
	should be ready to share resources with other schools and with other faith communitiesespecially if the Catholic school is situated in an area of deprivation and racial tension.
	That attitude is shared by other faith schools.
	Inter-faith relations have progressed over the past few years, and we must continue that journey. Faith-based education and schools have an important role in eliminating the stereotyping, prejudice and bigotry that exists in our society. Faith schools are not isolated institutionsthey are part of our communities. They are part of the solution, not the problem. We must make further progress with inter-faith relations, both locally and nationally, not exclude them as the hon. Gentleman seeks to do.
	The introduction of the Bill is purely opportunistic. It is not difficult to establish the hon. Gentleman's true motive for introducing it. Indeed, he admitted it himself. It has nothing to do with improving educational standardsit is an attack on the rights of those who wish to lead their lives in accordance with a particular religious belief. It is a case based on a list of inaccuracies. It is an attempt to deny parents the right to decide what is best for their children. It is an attempt that, I hope, the House will reject.

Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 23 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business):
	The House divided: Ayes 33, Noes 157.

Question accordingly negatived.

Points of Order

Mark Hoban: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Have you received a request from the Prime Minister to come to the House to clarify the fact that the guidance on random drug testing, to which he referred in Prime Minister's Question Time, was issued on 16 February, contrary to the impression that he gave? I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that he would like to come to the House to ensure that Hansard is corrected, and so that neither the House nor the public are inadvertently misled by his comments.

Mr. Speaker: I am sure that the Prime Minister will be back next Wednesday, and someone can put that question to him then.

Oliver Heald: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not the case that if a Minister, even inadvertently, says something to the House that is incorrect, he should correct it? In those circumstances, is it not incumbent on the Prime Minister either to amend the record in Hansard or come to the House and tell us that he got it wrong?

Mr. Speaker: I was trying to say in response to the first point of order that I am not going to be drawn into these matters.

Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security

[Relevant document: The Sixth Report from the Joint Committee on Human Rights of Session 200304 on the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001: Statutory Review and Continuance of Part 4, HC 381.]

David Blunkett: I beg to move,
	That this House takes note of the Privy Counsellor Review Committee Report on the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 Review (HC 100), which was laid before this House on 18th December 2003.
	I urge the House to reject the amendment tabled by the Liberal Democrats, which would immediately withdraw the opportunity to protect ourselves through the process adopted in part 4 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, which has been used to ensure that those who have been certificated and gone through that process are held in secure accommodation, pending their efforts or the efforts of the Government to secure a third country to which they can be removed. In this afternoon's debate I hope that we can address some of the underlying issues and challenges that face us.
	First, I want to thank Lord Newton and the members of the Privy Counsellor Review Committee for their dedicated work. We all appreciate the time, energy and commitment that they have put into the task that both Houses gave them in the 2001 Act. I also thank Lord Carlile for his continuing work and his further annual report on part 4 of the Act, and my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, East (Jean Corston), who chairs the Joint Committee on Human Rights, for her report on the material that was published yesterday.
	I should like all the reports to be considered alongside the discussion paper that the Government published today, which was placed in the House at 9.30 this morning. I shall take them together because when the House considered the Act it decided that we should examine Lord Newton's report as part of the continuing review of the measure. Lord Carlile reviewed part 4 and we have taken on board suggestions that he made on previous occasions about changes in the regime for those who are currently held in Belmarsh and Broadmoor and further changes that would be beneficial for implementing the Act.
	I address the House with some temerity because when we passed the Act we debated the substantial dangers involved in any democracy taking powers, as we did when we created the Special Immigration Appeals Commission as a superior court of record, chaired by a High Court judge, in circumstances in which we knew that security information would have to be provided and facilities established outside the normal criminal justice system. Many Members of both Houses raised perfectly legitimate issues in relation to the challenge that that posed to human rights and the presumption of innocence. We took on the challenge only because we believed that part 4 offered the only way of protecting our security from terrorism from abroad and from non-British citizens whom we could not remove from this country. We could not remove them precisely because we respected international conventions and the human rights of individuals who would be put at risk if they were returned to their country of origin, where they faced possible death or torture. That remains the case.

Jeremy Corbyn: Will the Home Secretary explain how our security is enhanced by a secretive judicial process whereby people can be detained indefinitely on his signature as opposed to an open court system, which could at least ascertain the veracity of the evidence? The guilty would then be imprisoned rather than subject to the indeterminate detention that he appears to support in the document that was published today.

David Blunkett: There are two parts to my hon. Friend's question. First, he asks whether security is enhanced and secondly whether the process, which he clearly does not like, for verifying the evidence that is presented to the superior court of record, namely the SIAC, does the job of ensuring that the evidence that the security services adduce is credible and therefore has veracity.
	I am clear that the certification process for the 17 people who have gone through it has been done correctly. The reviews that have taken place and the challenge to the process in the appeal court have verified that. We shall fight vigorously the further challenge that will be taken to the House of Lords. The certification process and SIAC's processes have been reviewed by SIAC in 11 announced cases out of 14. It has verified that the process and the level of evidence are sufficient. The process obviously accords with the evidence given by the head of the Security Service, Eliza Manningham-Buller, who recently said:
	I see no prospect of a significant reduction in the threat posed to the UK and its interests from international terrorism over the next 5 years, and I fear for a considerable number of years thereafter.

Alan Beith: On that basis, the Home Secretary clearly agrees with me that the threat from terrorism will not go away in the near future, and therefore we cannot consider the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 as temporary or emergency legislation. Is he therefore content to retain legislation in a form that does not fully meet requirementsfor example, dealing with British citizensand which will require a semi-permanent derogation from the European convention on human rights?

David Blunkett: The derogation from article 5 is allowed under article 15 of the European convention on human rights. Article 15 was originally included in the convention because it was envisaged that at points in time it would be necessary to derogate, and without it there would be no facility for derogation. Our criminal justice systemand our criminal justice process as a wholestrictly adheres to the European convention on human rights compared with systems in other countries, so it was right for us to be honest and open by derogating. Some countries clearly operate without derogation by holding people without trial under an investigatory, inquisitorial process. Our combative process rightly expects that people will be brought to court rather than their being held almost in perpetuity without trial while investigations proceed for year after year.
	As a member of the Intelligence and Security Committee, the right hon. Gentleman understands the issues and I respect his views. For the time being, my advisers and I believe that it is crucial that part 4 of the 2001 Act remains in place given the security risk and the presence of those whom I certificated. Those individuals used the SIAC process to challenge those certifications, and their lawyers have also gone to the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords on the wider issue of whether we were correct to take the derogation and to use the powers. I sincerely believe that on the evidence produced those individuals pose a continuing threat, which is why I certificated them in the first place. The certification process has been upheld and verified by SIAC and by the generic appeal to the Court of Appeal. We have used a higher level of evidence and lifted the test higher than the standard required by reasonable belief, which was the test laid down in this House just more than two years ago.

David Winnick: I have some reservations, which I hope to have the opportunity to express later. Can my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary imagine the criticism and backlash if, having been told by the security authorities that those foreign nationals are a threat and could well be involved in terrorism, he took no action and a terrorist outrage occurred in which some of those people were involved?

David Blunkett: I can imagine the criticism, and I have been imagining it for nearly two and a half years. I do not expect people to give any Home Secretary past, present or future any quarter on those issues, but I guarantee that I have and will do anything possible within our law, our justice, the presumption of innocence and the rejection of the use of arbitrary power to protect us against the threat or use of terror in our country. I carry that basic obligation in this office, and the Government carry it on behalf of the people. If we were to fail to meet that obligation and there were an incident, I would worry about death, torture and destabilisation, but I would also worry about the reaction, which would not allow the kind of debate that we are having this afternoon about how we take on the challenges.
	I re-emphasise that the original debate, the report and the challenge posed by the discussion that I am keen to encourage and support over the next few months is about how we deal with those profound issues while protecting our democratic life and maintaining our commitment to the principles of democracy, good government, justice and the presumption of innocence. The discussion must occur in an environment that allows us to address the issues calmly and sensibly, as we are doing this afternoon and have done in previous debates. If hon. Members have alternative ways to address the same challenges, they must bring them forward. In part, the Newton committee did its best to address the issues. Both the committee and Lord Carlile have raised some important questions, which I shall come to shortly.

Simon Hughes: I am sure that the Home Secretary would not suggest that the seven Privy Councillors, the Joint Committee on Human Rights or the Home Affairs Ministers and Interior Ministers of the rest of the European Unionwhere there has been no derogationdo not share with him, Liberal Democrats and hon. Members representing other parties the desire to deal with terrorism and protect our country. In that case, the proposal put by the seven Privy Councillors, who were appointed by Parliament, that we try people under a different set of rules rather than holding them without trial is an acceptable alternative for Parliament and preferable to denying people the fundamental right not to be held without trial?

David Blunkett: It is nice to do business again with the hon. Gentleman, whose question brings back many happy memories. I am coming to that issue, but I shall answer the question as succinctly as I can. It is, of course, possible to switch to alternative ways of dealing with individuals held under part 4 of the 2001 Act. The challenge laid down by Lord Newton of Braintree and the Privy Councillors is to decide whether it is possible to use without derogation a similar system for those being dealt with under immigration law who would otherwise be removed from the country and for those who are indigenous citizens of the United Kingdom.
	Such a process would require the presentation of evidence from the security services and the protection of their sources. It would also require the presentation of evidence taken through the SIAC while ensuring that that evidence did not leak. The circumstances mean that it is not always possible for the defendant to be given the entirety of the evidence precisely because they are someone who is believed to be engaged in terrorism. That individual would transmit that evidence in one form or another, which would put the security services and their sources at risk. We are trying to address that circular argument.
	I must put this important point on record because of the challenge in the House of Lords: part 4 of the 2001 Act was necessary and it remains necessary. It is the only way to deal with the circumstances outlined in the 2001 Act, and it must be maintained on the statute book and implemented. We are entirely open to persuasion that we can deal with a wider range of challenges while meeting the tests laid down by the Newton committee.

Douglas Hogg: I accept that the Home Secretary makes a serious point when he discusses the risk that evidence could leak if it were communicated to terrorists. However, that problem has also arisen over the past 30 years in Northern Ireland, where we have convicted terrorists by conventional means. Surely the effective processes to deal with evidence in Northern Ireland can be invoked to deal with the individuals covered by part 4 of the 2001 Act.

David Blunkett: I have obviously familiarised myself not only with the issues before us today, but the debate and decisions on the Terrorism Act 2000 and debates that took place before that. I am aware of the significant difficulties. It is not a one-way process, with the only issue being how we can change the SIAC process and the provisions of part 4. The further question is how we can make our existing terrorism legislation, including the Terrorism Act 2000, work more effectively. There is existing legislation on domestic terror that cannot be used effectively under current procedures.
	I suggest that the challenge in the months ahead is to explore how we can make what we already have work more judiciously and effectively through the criminal justice system, while also learning the lessons of Northern Ireland. The challenge that we faced post-11 September 2001and will face again as we debate the issue in the months aheadis how to deal with circumstances in which we do not use prosecution and punishment as discouragement, but get in at the beginning to prevent action from being taken by those for whom prosecution and punishment hold no fear. In other words, there are no norms when dealing with suicide terrorism generated by al-Qaeda and the networks working with it, in the way that there were in the past with terrorist groups that had a negotiating position and whose members sought to save their own lives even if they endeavoured to take the lives of others.

Vera Baird: Is my right hon. Friend able to confirm that two of the people currently subject to part 4 have been prosecuted, one to conviction and the other is in course of prosecution? If that is correct, were special procedures needed or used in those prosecutions?

David Blunkett: I can confirm that one of the 17 has been found guilty of other offences. Those offences could be dealt with by the criminal court, but the certification and the material produced by the security service on that individual's more serious and wide-ranging association with and commitment to terrorism could not. That is the difficulty. Lord Newton poses the challenge of whether one can take a lesser offence and build on it, with evidence of what in other circumstances is called aggravation. That could mean the imposition of a longer, more substantive sentence, on the basisin some formof security service advice provided through a process similar to the SIAC process. The original crime would be enhanced, but it would still be addressed through the criminal justice system. That is a profound question. Can we get in at the sharp end and pick up on low-level criminality that is associated with terrorism? The report raises that issue and I shall deal with it in greater depth in a moment.
	We will put out a statement today, at the other end of the spectrum of prevention, about how we can protect ourselves against attack through the capabilities resilience programme, which we used to call civil contingencies. It will address how we can protect the public and intervene quickly if an attack takes place. The statement will update the House on developments and I hope that it will be helpful. However, it will obviously not protect the nation from what we are describing this afternoon.

Simon Thomas: What will concern many of us who opposed the powers and would like to see the recommendations of the Privy Counsellor Review Committee adopted is the idea that the further powers the Home Secretary seeks to bring insome of which we supportwill add to the panoply of powers he has and not replace some of them. Before he goes into detail about the new powers that he wants to consider, will he say whether the expansion of powers will enable us to stop the derogation from the European convention on human rights and drop the invidious system of detention without trial?

David Blunkett: My right hon. Friend the Minister for Citizenship and Immigration and I are asking the Houseshe will do so later by laying the relevant orderto proceed with part 4 and with the derogation because nothing that has been suggested is a substitute for those procedures. Nor have we heard any answers to the challenges that we lay down this afternoon. The Newton report and Lord Carlile have made sensible suggestions for dealing with low-level terrorist activity and association, and some legislative measures that have been implemented abroadsome long before 11 Septemberare worthy of consideration. That might enable us to deal with at least one of the contradictions that we acknowledged two and half years agothat if one uses powers under immigration law, as we have in the case of the 17 people who were certificated under the SIAC procedure, they are not being dealt with on the same basis as the indigenous population. That follows logically. However, that does not address the further challenge of the derogation with regard to the admissibility of evidence, the nature of the evidence base and the way in which it is presented.

David Davis: Before the Home Secretary leaves the subject of part 4, can he confirm whether I am right in my understanding of the documentation that he issued this morning? If I read it correctly, he undertook to review part 4 before the end of this Session. If so, will he come back to the House with his decision to continue or to amend it?

David Blunkett: I intend to have extensive consultation over six months, in which we will invite Members of Parliament, the public and those with a specific interest to come forward and to build on the propositions in the reports that I have mentioned and the challenges that we put in our paper. We will then produce not an alternative to our defence against the House of Lords challenge, but a comprehensive response to the issue of combining the powers that we possess under part 4 with the challenge of how to deal with the indigenous population, including the enhancement of the effectiveness of the Terrorism Act 2000, to which I referred in response to the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg). We will also respond to the challenge that the Government face as we move closer to the expiration of the sunset clause in 2006. Instead of coming within three months of the expiration of the sunset clause and then having the debate, I prefer to have the debate in the calm that I described in responding to my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (David Winnick), to allow everyone to have a fair say.
	We act as we do because we believe that there is a substantial and continuing threat. I am deeply disturbed when I hear somenot allhuman rights lawyers, including those who represent those who are held in protective custody under the certification system, talk about the so-called war on terror and imply that there is no continuing threat.

Helen Jackson: Does my right hon. Friend recognise that this very important legislation, which we, clearly, are looking at for the purpose of securing security for our own population, has an international implication, because any extension of imprisonment without trial will be noted by countries around the world that are not so concerned as we are about those very high standards of justice? Will there be an opportunity in the consultation period to take on board comments from other countries, as well as bodies in this country, in order to examine terrorism in the wider sphere?

David Blunkett: Albeit that I am open to criticism for making speeches on terrorism across the world, which is also faced with terror, the answer is Yes, I think we should. I did it in New Delhi to an audience including human rights lawyers and members of the supreme court, who, contrary to the kind of dismissal that I saw on Newsnight last night, had a deep commitment as human rights lawyers and members of India's supreme court to human and civil rights in their country and across the world. I shall do the same in the Untied States in two weeks' time, because I believe that these are universal principles that are crucial to democracy and justice, and that we should debate them on that basis.
	I am very mindful that what we do in this country is a benchmark, and I hope that it will remain a pillar of best practice and a beacon for people across the world.

Mark Oaten: The Home Secretary has just confirmed that he plans to review part 4 in a six-month period. Will he therefore consider amending tomorrow's order so that the extension period is six months, so that there will be a guarantee that we can debate it in a six-month period?

David Blunkett: No, I will not. Apart from the fact that the regulations and the Act do not permit us to do so, we laid down the annual review by the House and the renewal procedure knowing that individual cases, after the initial six months, would be reviewed on a three-monthly basis. The Special Immigration Appeals Commission will review all the cases that it has dealt with on a three-monthly basis, and it has the powerand is free tochallenge the continuing evidence placed before it, and whether the risk continues. In terms of dealing both with Lord Newton's report and with renewal, I need to spell out that that is risk to the life of the nation that constitutes a public emergency within article 15 of the ECHR. I needed to get that on the record as well.
	As I spelt out in quoting Eliza Manningham-Buller, nothing has diminished that threat. It is important to continue to re-emphasise that, because, sadly, people easily forget Bali, where 202 people were killed; Casablanca, where 44 people were killed; Riyadh, where 34 people were killed; Jakarta, where 12 people were killed; and Istanbul, where at the end of last year, over 50 people lost their lives including the consul general and members of his staff.
	These are continuing threats that are taken seriously by all democratic nations, and rightly so, given the tremendous threat from al-Qaeda, repeated by bin Laden on numerous occasions. From February last year, to Septemberwhen he produced a tapeto January this year, he has laid down that threat to anyone who dares to threaten what he believes and what his creed holds. Last February, he said:
	We also point out that whoever supported the United States, including the hypocrites of Iraq or the rulers of Arab states, those who approved their actions and followed them in this crusade war to fighting with them or providing bases and administrative support to them or any form of support, even by words, to kill Muslims in Iraq should know that they are apostates and outside the community of Muslims. It is permissible to spill their blood and take their property.
	That is a direct and continuing threat, not in theory, but in practice, to our lives, to the well-being of our country, to the values that we hold and to our democracy.
	I simply ask that, in dealing with the real and very big challenges of not doing away with the standard of proof, the presumption of innocence and the way in which we have traditionally upheldin the face of considerable difficultiesour criminal justice process, we bear in mind the nature and level of the threat and what it means to us.

George Osborne: The right hon. Gentleman is clearly right about the nature of the threat, and I applaud much of what he is doing to counter it. Can he assess how much damage we have done to al-Qaeda in the last couple of years? We have had the military operations in Afghanistan, and bin Laden is pinned down wherever he is, but can he give a broader assessment of whether we are winning the war against terror?

David Blunkett: At a superficial level, I think that people can presume that, given the attacks that I listed, the war is not yet won; the pronouncements of the head of the Security Service, MI5, underline the continuing threat. But the challenge is what would have happened had we not taken the steps that we took, had we not got the quality of the Security Servicebuilt up, it must be said, with its expertise and knowledge of dealing with terror emanating from Ireland, particularly over the last 30 yearsand the anti-terrorist branch. That gives me an opportunity to say how much respect I have for them and to thank them for the work that they have been doing. The difficulty for them is that prevention is never seen or acknowledged. Prevention does not allow us to celebrate what has been done. It is only in the aftermath of tragedy that we see whether a system, process or security measure has failed. I have the privilege and the difficulty of being given the evidence of what they are doing and how they are doing it. I hold them in tremendously high regard. That is why prevention is so fundamental to this debate.

Vera Baird: My right hon. Friend was discussing criminal procedures and the position of the security services. I accept entirely that he personally adopts a very much higher standard than reasonable suspicion before certificating people, and I am sure that SIAC adopts a high standard before confirming his certificates. Usually, civil courts adopt a criminal standard when their finding will imply that somebody has committed criminal offences, which is the position here. I wonder how far we are from being able successfully to prosecute the people concerned, at least in front of a judge, and whether the need is not to search for better ways of protecting the evidence that has to be relied on and not for new powers.

David Blunkett: Let me take the challenge on. We believe that if we have not actually achieved it, we have come very close to achieving the standard of proof relevant to, and by necessity demanded by, a criminal court. My hon. and learned Friend puts her finger on the difficulty, which is the nature of how we have reached that level and standard of proof. By necessity, in terms of the nature of the evidence presented, its admissibility and the use of special advocates, the difficulty is that, every time we take a step to try to achieve what is being asked of us, we get disqualified by people being against particular elements of the process that they do not like.
	I referred earlier to the difficult issue of how to ensure that, as with a criminal trial, defendants have all the evidence presented to them, when the defendants themselves are a problem in passing on and using the evidence presented to them, as opposed to the special advocate assigned to them, to continue the development and perpetration of terror.
	That is not like the consideration of a normal criminal activity when someone is charged with finding out, through an adversarial situation, whether a person is guilty or not and evidence is adduced to determine that. That is different from people using evidence to continue to perpetrate the activity that they were doing in the first place that we were trying to stop. The way in which we move forward is a layman's challenge as well as a legal challenge for those of us who are not lawyers.
	Could we have special advocates? The Newton committee suggests that we could have special advocates at a different level, which relates to what we were discussing a moment ago about the enhancement of the crime so that punishment would thus be based on an initial arrest for a form of criminality different from terrorism. It also lays down the challenge of producing a definition of terrorism, because the House and the other place have struggled to find one that would make terrorism a crime in itself, rather than the combination of activities that we put together in the Terrorism Act 2000 and the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001.
	I thought that I was struggling when I tried to get the legislation clear in my head two years ago, but that was chickenfeed compared with actually taking on the challenge of trying to find the nature of the solution and addressing the contradictions raised by the Newton committee with which we are dealing now. The Government had to come up with the right solution for the specific problem of overseas citizens whom we could not remove. The Newton committee is now understandably challenging us to deal with a whole different range of individuals who are preparing for, or engaged with, terror.

Lembit �pik: With reference to the Home Secretary's comments about Northern Ireland, does he accept that one of the lessons from Northern Ireland for Governments of all colours was that suppressing terrorist acts was not especially successful? For example, detention without trial had the counter-productive effect of strengthening the recruiting activities of the IRA. However unpalatable it might be to acknowledge it, real progress was made in Northern Ireland after we started considering the motives of terrorists. Will he comment on the extent to which the Government have actively considered a strategy through which we would try to understand the motives of terrorismwithout condoning thembecause, after all, that is how the biggest progress was made on the troubles in Northern Ireland?

David Blunkett: I am not getting into that whatsoever. I do not understand the motives of those who commit suicide and blow up other people. I do not understand the motives of religious teachers and leaders and others who are not prepared to do that themselves, so instead send young men and women as suicide bombers to do their work for themthat is what happens. I do not understand those who have no negotiating position and no demands other than the total capitulation of our democratic way of life and values, because, make no mistake about it, that is what al-Qaeda is all about. There is no negotiation about the unification of a country or, for example, a just solution in the middle east, which we all want; it has never engaged in that demand. The Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have tried to engage in that process and we have tried to engage the United States' powerful voice to help us to achieve it. Virtually everyone in the House of Commons would want us to continue to try to do that. How can we understand those who take innocent lives not to free themselves from the shackles of some sort of post-colonialism, but to destroy the modernity and the society that they literally hate?

Robert Marshall-Andrews: My point is on precisely the issue about which the Home Secretary was talking before he took the previous intervention: the difference between the prosecution of terrorism and of normal crime. That is what causes some of us considerable difficulty, especially those of us who have been involved in the prosecution and defence of serious and organised crime, including terrorism. Many of the difficulties that the Home Secretary rightly enumerates are already dealt with when considering such serious crimes. When people are prosecuted for those crimes, it is inevitable that method and the fruits of method are revealed. Infiltration is revealed in such trials by necessity. Of course, that is subject to public interest immunity, which can be draconian in such circumstances. Will he consider what the difference is in truth between the problems when dealing with the most serious of crimes and with terrorism? It appears to us that terrorist crime is being elevated to a different level of crime, which is one of the reasons why some people cavil with the word warnot because of its seriousness, but because crime is being treated as something other than crime.

David Blunkett: I know that my hon. and learned Friend is more familiar than I am with the uses of public interest immunity and the constraints that exist on the way in which evidence may be seen by defendants and how it may be used in court. If we believed that public interest immunity would cover the requirements that I have tried to enunciate, we would have used that. We will want to come back to the serious crimes about which he talks in a White Paper on organised crime, which will build on the announcement of the establishment of a serious organised crime agency, because there are real issues regarding conspiracy that the Attorney-General wishes to examine and that were touched on in the Newton report. There are questions about the way in which one can read over from one set of activities to another, but that does not get us away from the nature of the evaluation of security advice.
	The surveillance and work of the security services are our best means of prevention, and that is why I can confirm that we have already substantially increased the resourcing of the Security Service so that we can double its capacity to process and use the materials that it adduces as part of its intelligence gathering. The development of the Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre that we established last June will be helpful for drawing together a range of evidence from not only MI5, but MI6, GCHQ and the defence intelligence service. The increase of staff numbers by 50 per cent. will also be helpful.

Mark Oaten: Liberal Democrats fully support the Home Secretary's plans to staff up MI5 and other intelligence services. He said in the pressand just now on the Floor of the Housethat he expects a doubling of staff. What is the date by which he hopes to achieve that increase?

David Blunkett: That has already begun. I confirm that at the end of last year we agreed additional resources for this year and the next with the Security Service so that it could develop its work, as it has been doing. We described that privately and in more detail to the Intelligence and Security Committee. Obviously, recruitment, training and ensuring that people operate in an acceptable way takes time. Resources have been provided at each stage at which the Security Service has requested them so that it may continue its expansion at a scale and rate that is appropriate to its ability to recruit.
	We have also increased the co-ordination of special branches, following the review that we undertook, by pulling them together into eight regional co-ordinating units. We have appointed a new co-ordinator, Bryan Bell, who was the assistant chief constable of Cleveland, to undertake that work. I referred to the White Paper a moment ago, and I shall say more about that and the necessary border controls and co-ordination in due course. All the elements go together in terms of prevention, surveillance and making sure that we act on an acceptable basis.

Julian Lewis: I hope that the Home Secretary will accept that I wish to make a non-partisan point. It is vital that the security services are expanded to meet the threat, but is it really such a good idea to make announcements that major recruiting programmes are under way in advance of the expansion? Is there not a danger that people sympathetic to the al-Qaeda cause may make special efforts to get themselves recruited? Would it not usually be better to do the recruitment first and make the announcement afterwards?

David Blunkett: Actually, that is what I have just said; I was very careful. I notice that the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), who is a member of the Intelligence and Security Committee, is smiling. He knows that that is correct. I was confirming that we had done it rather than giving al-Qaeda notice that something terribly new was about to happen. However, I take the point.

Julian Lewis: I am sorry to have to return to this point, but the BBC news report on this subject stated:
	The Home Secretary will announce plans to recruit another 1,000 staff in Parliament next week.
	Is he saying that the report is wrong and that the recruitment has already taken place, or is he saying that it is going to take place?

David Blunkett: The BBC was wrong in only one regard. I am confirming the event this afternoon. The point is well taken that we do not want to parade what we are doing to those who would use what we are doing against us. The point is noted.
	We should automatically assume that we will take forward some of the challenges that the Newton report laid down. We have laid that out in the written response that is part of today's debate.
	An interesting question was raised about the nature of our system. I have mentioned its adversarial nature, and some of the Newton committee's recommendations would depend on an inquisitorial system that, as it says, mirrors the magistracy system in France. There would be an investigating magistrate and the more detailed work would be undertaken behind the scenes, taking the evidence, collating it and bringing it forward in a different way. Our system is different, but if people are serious about an alternative oneI do not dismiss that, not least for low-level association and links with terrorist groupswe need to be serious about examining how it would work and how it would change the nature of disclosure and admissibility in our system.

David Davis: I must admit that, when I first read the Newton report, I had difficulty with the explicit point that it made about the examining magistrates procedure. As I understand it, it would put a firebreak into the evidence process, but ensure that it remained safe and even-handed. Would that not involve completely changing our approach to the treatment of major crimes?

David Blunkett: By no means; we would not necessarily have to extend such a system to major crimes. In the end, it still does not deal with the question of to whom the material is exposed and how the safeguards can be built in, as with the special advocate process that exists through SIAC. By necessity, I have read the reports carefully. Each time one thinks that one is moving towards a solution, there is an objection to another piece of the equation. It is a bit like a puzzle that one thinks one has solved but finds that one has not. I have never been good at such puzzles, so I shall have to try to get a bit better at them over the months ahead. That is why I thought it was useful to discuss the matter in the context and atmosphere of this debate.

Brian Mawhinney: rose

William Cash: rose

David Blunkett: I have provoked hon. Members now. I shall take both interventions.

Brian Mawhinney: I was a member of the committee and we examined the magisterial system in France and heard direct evidence about it. I assure the Home Secretary that the purpose of the report was not to call into question the fundamental framework within which we are looking at these issues. He is right: the system in France is different from ours. However, we were struck by the fact that there were, or appeared to be, advantagesnot least, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis) suggested, in terms of handling evidence. Given that the Home Secretary will have a full consultation and review, it is probably worth taking such a system seriously if we are seeking new structures that are acceptable to us, but that protect the rights of the individual somewhat better than part 4 does.

David Blunkett: I do not for a moment dispute what the right hon. Gentleman says about taking such a system seriously and being prepared to examine how it might enhance the powers available to us. I said that there were probably lower-level activitiesthe French call them associating with a wrongdoer. Their system goes back to the time when they were dealing with major terrorism from north Africafrom Algeria to be precise.
	As well as the inquisitorial system, the right hon. Gentleman will be familiar with the recommendations in the Newton report, such as those for electronic tagging and monitoring and on the subject of bank balances. They could come into play. I dispute whether the latter recommendations could come into play for those who are so strongly linked to, and engaged in, terrorism that they are central to the threat to us. Allowing them free access to talk with and to be with other people at allnever mind allowing them to use computers, telephones or bank balanceswould put us at risk. We are half way to each other in recognising that the committee has raised an interesting issue that we should address and that we should be open-minded about.
	I am interested in French law. However, I am not advocating it, and I had better make that clear in case a baroness in the other place gets the wrong idea and is on the PM programme before I get the chance to refute the idea that I am. There is a historical difference in France. Because of the system of investigatory magistrates and the way in which the French judicial system works, they have held people suspected of terrorism for up to four years without trial. I would not want that; the SIAC process is a lot better, not least the three-monthly reviews. Our ability to debate the issues this afternoon demonstrates the care with which our democracy and the House take the issue of moving beyond the standard of proof and the procedures that we have normally adopted in criminal justice cases.

William Cash: The manner in which the Government are presenting the information to the House, the discussion paper and all that flows from it and the dialogue that is going on are, unlike the approach taken to the Civil Contingencies Bill, extremely useful. Does the Home Secretary agree that, whatever merits there may be in the Newton committee's criticisms of part 4, one aspect has not been considered sufficiently? Under section 21, the Secretary of State can issue a certificate only if he reasonably believes or suspects that someone is a terrorist. We then have the review procedures on appeal and the provisions for certification in sections 25 and 26. In other words, unlike in the Civil Contingencies Bill, there is in this measure an opportunity for the court to get to grips with the question of whether the Home Secretary or other Ministers have misbehaved in any way. Does he agree that that is one reason why he might be right and the Newton committee might not be?

David Blunkett: There needed to be a checkthe House was very clear about thison the certification and subsequent reviewing work of SIAC. When deciding to make SIAC a superior court of record, the issue of judicial review was debated. The starting point was how we could review certification judicially, as well as having the Carlile review, although Lord Carlile does an extremely good job of reviewing whether the process has been used correctly and whether due weight has been given to reasonable belief. That is why I have been able to say that we have now gone beyond reasonable belief in weighing up.
	I know that other hon. Members want to speak, so I shall not go on at great length. To put that matter in context, however, it is worth reflecting that when the House was debating this at substantial length in November, it was feared that very large numbers of people would be picked up, certificated and dealt with under the measure. It was suggested at the time that 200, 300 or 400 people could be picked up.

David Davis: One is too many.

David Blunkett: Well, it would be if that person were unjustly accusedI accept that challenge. That is why we are agonising over how to go forward. We have been through the trauma of finding that people who have been through our existing criminal justice system have turned out to be innocent, and we are mindful of that. However, I was about to make the point that there was much concern because of the promises that had been given in the past. I remember that at that time one of my hon. Friends used the example of a former Home Secretary who projected at the beginning of the second world war the number of people who would be picked up for internment, which turned out to be a massive underestimate. I merely point out that we gave a pledge that we would use the provision judiciously and sparingly, and that we have kept that promise. We have used it only where we genuinely believed that the risk warranted it.
	Therefore, in asking the House to allow us to retain part 4 for the foreseeable future, and in dealing with the challenges of Newton and CarlileLord Carlile also came up with the idea of acts preparatory to terrorismwe are prepared to take on board a range of suggestions that might help us incrementally to deal with people who are part of a wider association or network.

Jeremy Corbyn: Can the Home Secretary help me on one point? If the legislation that he supports allows him to detain foreign nationals on suspicion of terrorist activities, is he considering extending that power to British nationals? Surely, if someone is entitled to legal rights, they are entitled to them whatever their nationality.

David Blunkett: That is what we debated when we passed the 2001 Act. We discussed the fact that we were dealing with immigration powers, and with citizens whom we wished to reject from this country but could not because we wanted to safeguard their human rights. I have said this afternoon that although we face substantial challenges in improving the use of other parts of our law, including the Terrorism Act 2000, it is not my intention to use the SIAC process for citizens of the United Kingdom. Nor is it my intention, because I cannot see how we could do it, simply to do away with SIAC by using instead the system that we have in the United Kingdom purely to deal with this challenge.
	We are trying to square the circle, because there are those who do not want special advocates but accept that we have to keep security evidence private, and others who do not want derogation but accept that if we have special advocates and want the process to be fair and open, we have to use derogation because we acknowledge that we are derogating from part 5. Then there are those who are uncomfortable with the certification process. But how do we deal with a magistracy investigation process in such circumstances? Some may agree with us on severity and the particular circumstances developed for part 4, but want us to consider other activity in connection with lower-level association, perhaps looking at what has taken place in France or the suggestions made by Lord Carlile on acts preparatory to terrorism. All those matters need to be dealt with in the months ahead.

John Denham: Part 4 applies solely to foreign nationals. If I understand Newton and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary correctly, measures against acts preparatory to terrorism or association with wrongdoers would not apply solely to foreign nationals but could apply generally to British citizens. Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to say how during the next six months he will explore the real issues that that would raise, given that it would introduce legal measures that, in the real world, would apply only to one community in this country, whatever the theory of the law? He is raising enormously important issues, and the handling of them, including the consultation period, is critical.

David Blunkett: I understand precisely what my right hon. Friend is, quite rightly, alluding to. Let me make the position clear. We had the same difficulty with citizens of, or persons who had originated in, Ireland when surveillance and anti-terrorism activity focused on terrorism emerging from Ireland, and it was feared that the Irish community in Britain was therefore being tarred with a certain brush. Those questions were rightly put at that time. There was real fear, for example in parts of north London, where people genuinely feared at the time of severe bombings that there would be action against them purely because of their accent. It is perhaps hard for us to remember now just how horrendous some of those bombing attacks were. The blowing up of the Grand hotel in 1983, the bombing of the bandsmen and the Birmingham bombing, with their taking of innocent life, shook people to the core and invoked a reaction.
	Part of what we are required, of necessity, to do is to calm fears. We should not exaggerate incidents or appear to be regularly hyping such situations, but should try to explain to the public that people from an Islamic background who have engaged with terror have disengaged themselves from the Koran and the teachings of Islam. That is what all my Islamic advisers and friends make clear. Therefore, in taking actions that deal with a particular source of terror activity, we need to take commensurate steps to maintain calmness, social cohesion and race relations, giving the necessary explanations and information. My right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham) has played an important part in that, including in taking forward suggestions not only on divided communities and the issues that were raised after the disturbances in 2001, but on the broader issues of how we develop faith and cohesion measures to enable us to avoid the kind of problems that he has raised this afternoon. I thank him for the way in which he has raised those issues.
	I also say to my right hon. Friend that if we were considering lower-level activities, we would be examining concrete suggestions over the next six months and beyond. I have one suggestion that goes with the grain of the Newton report and the experience in France. Let us suppose that it were possible to seek to prevent someone from being engaged in a low-level connection or association with terror by preventing them from using a particular bank balance, as Newton suggested, or a telephone or computer. I am now drawing on the Newton committee report. Let us suppose that an order were placed on that person to preclude them from using those facilities for a particular length of time. That would be a civil order, but if they breached it, it would be a criminal offence. We should be dealing with the breach of the order. That area is worth exploring, and I believe that the Newton committee and the acts preparatory to terrorism that Lord Carlile mentioned will help us to examine it.

Alan Beith: Does the Home Secretary recall that one of the reasons for setting up the committee was that there was a lot of anxiety about rushing legislation through Parliament when significant parts of it extended far beyond the realm of terrorism? Given that the response rejects quite a lot of the committee's recommendations relating to greater monitoring in the areas that are not primarily about terrorism, will he at least reflect on the committee's concern that, if legislation covering far wider issues than terrorism is rushed through Parliament with shortened procedures, it will undermine the consensus on the use of those procedures in future?

David Blunkett: While I do not wholly agree with what was being said, I was about to say that there are other areas that deal with the wider Act, involving the open publication of statistics and relating to arrests under the Terrorism Act 2000 and the certification process, which we accept as well. The taking forward of the list of pathogens and toxins, the recommendations of the Newton report on the security of premises and the commentary in relation to aspects of the Act itself in terms of mainstreaming were among the suggestions to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred.
	We are not rejecting those suggestions. We are saying that if there are opportunities to mainstream other parts of the Act in future legislation, the Government should consider doing that. However, deliberately to re-run them for the sake of re-running them now, not because anyone objects to them, would be detrimental to the other forms of legislation that every Member of the House is encouraging us to introduce. This is a bit like air traffic control: if one plane is in the air, the next one cannot go up until we have moved the first one. That is how legislation works. Each Cabinet Minister feels strongly that their own Department's legislation should be brought forward. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me for not being a great enthusiast for re-running everything from other parts of the Act, and for being willing to re-run them when it is appropriate to do so, in the spirit of the Newton report.

Vera Baird: Have I understood the gist of what the Home Secretary is saying in asking for the powers relating to terrorism to be renewed? Is he saying that, however we try to devise appropriate criminal procedures, which might satisfactorily deal with British citizens who can be dealt with in no other way, and might reduce the number of people who need to be detained under the current powers, he is none the less perfectly satisfied that we cannot manage without the current powers as well?

David Blunkett: The answer to that has to be an unequivocal yes; otherwise, the Act would collapse. The process of certification and the challenges being made would all be subject to that answer. I made it clear when I repeated the words of the head of the intelligence service that I believe it is a necessity to reaffirm part 4 and to look at the wider issues in the spirit that we have done this afternoon. I want to thank the House

Hugh Bayley: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

David Blunkett: I shall allow my hon. Friend an eleventh hour intervention.

Hugh Bayley: My right hon. Friend is very kind. My concern is with part 12 of the Act, which does not directly deal with terrorism but contains anti-bribery provisions. Have I understood correctly that the Government will not repeal part 12 until such time as alternative, more clearly drawn legislation against international bribery has been enacted?

David Blunkett: We have in draft related legislation that would give us the opportunity to do that. I hope that we shall be able to do so. In the spirit of the question, I shall ensure that we deal with that question in the serious and organised crime White Paper. It would be sensible to deal with it in relation to the broader international issues.
	The atmosphere in the House this afternoon and the way in which right hon. and hon. Members are approaching this issue are extremely encouraging. Democracy protecting democracy is the best possible advert for democracy. That is a great strength, and I thank all hon. Members for this. I commend the motionwhich I carefully enunciated at the beginning of this debate, because I had toto the House, and I hope that hon. Members will support it.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Before I call the next speaker, may I remind the House that Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment tabled in the name of the leader of the Liberal Democrats.

David Davis: I join the Home Secretary in thanking Lord Newton and his colleagues for their report on the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001. As the House would expect from a committee of distinguished Privy Councillors, it has produced a report that is substantial, measured and constructive. The committee clearly put in a formidable quantity of work and did an enormous amount of research. It also brought to bear a considerable level of expertise and experience, and made a number of serious recommendations worthy of careful consideration by the Government.
	Matters as serious as the balancing of the safety of our citizens against the fundamental rights to justice of all human beings demand serious consideration, so it was with regret that I observed how quickly the Home Secretary seemed to dismiss the main thrust of the report when it was published in December. As Peter Riddell put it in The Times:
	The 121-page report is not what would have been written by Amnesty, Liberty or Michael Mansfield.
	He concluded:
	Mr. Blunkett should not have been so hasty.
	I am pleased that the tenor of the Home Secretary's comments today has been much more measured, and I commend him for that. He is right to say that the tone of this debate will serve us well in coming to a good conclusion.
	As the Home Secretary has pointed out, the context for the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 was the events of 11 September 2001. At that time, it was said that those events were an attack not just on the United States or the American people but on us all, on our democracy, our freedoms and our way of life. We should not forget that 78 of the 3,000 people killed that day came from our own country. Since 11 September, attacks have taken place in Bali, Mombassa, Riyadh, Casablanca and Istanbul, so no one should harbour any illusions about the potency of the terrorist threat, or about the fact that we in the United Kingdom remain a top target for people such as bin Laden and his al-Qaeda cohorts.
	The committee, at paragraph 103 of its report, quoted the director-general of the Security Service, as did the Home Secretary. I believe that her words bear further repetition:
	I see no prospect of a significant reduction in the threat posed to the UK and its interests from Islamist terrorism over the next five years, and I fear for a considerable number of years thereafter.
	The point here is that we are not talking about a temporary measure when we discuss these issues today. So far, we have been fortunate. As a result of the skill of the police and our intelligence services, planned terrorist attacks have been thwarted, but the need for vigilance remains constant. I therefore join those who welcome the announcement by the Home Secretary of additional numbers for MI5. I rather enjoyed his attempt not to give too much away while telling us what was going on in that regard.
	We need to have in place all the necessary measures to prevent attacks from succeeding in the United Kingdom and, to the best of our ability, elsewhere in the world. It is clear that, in the House, we have to be united in the war against terror. So we agree with the Newton committee that there is a continuing need for special counter-terrorist legislation. We also believe that terrorists should be given no special status and ought to be treated as criminals. As Lord Lloyd set out in his 1996 review, as far as possible anti-terrorist legislation should approximate to the ordinary criminal law and procedure.
	Of course, the Home Secretary is right to stress that the Government do not lightly take on the powers in the 2000 and 2001 Acts. It obviously involves difficult judgments and measures that no Government in a liberal democracy would ordinarily consider. The Home Secretary will be happy to know that I include him in that definition of liberal democracy. [Laughter.] I thought I might get a laugh. To be serious, that is why we need constantly to check the powers against three strict and rigorous tests.
	First, are we confident that the powers work to minimise the risk of terrorism? That is not an otiose question. Secondly, do they undermine fundamental liberties to the extent that they do the terrorists' work for them? Thirdly, can the protection of the public be achieved with less harm to those liberties by any other means? To put it another way, we must always remember what we are defending. For those reasons, although we support the 2001 Act overall, we believe that all anti-terrorist legislation should be subject to annual review and full debate by Parliamentand, if necessary, regular revision.
	Before I come to the most controversial piece of the report, which took up most of the Home Secretary's speech, I shall deal with some other serious sections of it. One of the most striking aspects of the committee's report is the number of powers that it identifies in the 2001 Act that have been used sparingly or not at all. It gives the example of freezing orders, provided for in part 2. Everybody agrees that the power to freeze assets is a key weapon in the fight against terrorism, yet the committee states at paragraph 146:
	These measures are unlikely to be used against terrorism while the Terrorism (United Nations Measures) Order 2001 is in place, which already makes specific provision for freezing terrorist assets.
	The committee goes on to cite a number of advantages that distinguish the United Nations order from the part 2 powers, and concludes that
	freezing orders for specific use against terrorism should be addressed again in primary terrorism legislation, based on the well-tested provisions of the Terrorism (United Nations Measures) Order 2001.
	In their response to Newton, the Government say that they do not accept the proposal, stating:
	The fact that the power has not been deployed since the legislation came into force is not of itself an argument for setting it aside now, nor including it within wider primary anti-terrorism legislation.
	We find that a curious justification for rejecting the committee's perfectly reasonably proposal, and ask the Home Secretary to consider the issue again, as much of the committee's argument is that the UN terrorism order is a better, more effective and more just law.

Douglas Hogg: Does my right hon. Friend agree that much of what he is saying and quoting reinforces the proposition that the 2001 Act, which was introduced as emergency legislation, contains a host of provisions that could not by any stretch of the imagination be regarded as emergency measures, but were never subject to any proper scrutiny?

David Davis: My right hon. and learned Friend reiterates the point made by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith). We on the Conservative Benches have argued time and again that measures that involve relatively draconian powers require much greater scrutiny than is possible these days in this House of Commonseven when they are not emergency powers.
	The committee says on the question of identity theft:
	we are not convinced that all the relevant measures in Part 10 address it effectively.
	The report cites an al-Qaeda manual that devotes two pages to falsifying passports and identity cards. It also notes the importance placed by the French authorities on credit card fraud as a basis for micro-finance in contemporary terrorism. We need to prevent terrorists from misrepresenting themselves in the system in the first place, and in his response to Newton, the Home Secretary said:
	The Government are assured that these powers are effective and proportionate.
	How can that be the case when the committee has said that the problem is so large scale? The Home Secretary says that the problems will be addressed by the introduction of identity cards in the UK and by the use of biometric technologies, but under the Government's scheme, compulsory cards will not be introduced until 2011 and will not solve the problem of credit card fraud. We need a more rapid and tailored solution than the one that the Government are offering.
	We agree strongly with the committee's recommendation on terrorist property, particularly in relation to extending the power of seizure to non-cash items. The Government say that the powers in the terrorism Act already allow such seizures, yet the committee has clearly identified a problem. We ask the Home Secretary for greater reassurance than that given in the published response, which states that current powers are adequate to tackle the problem.
	We also agree with the view that
	open hearings in an ordinary Magistrates Court are not the appropriate forum for handling cash seizures in terrorist cases.
	The committee recommends that the terrorism Act be amended to enable cash seizure hearings to be handled in a similar way to warrant hearings under the legislation. The Home Secretary said that he would look closely at that proposal, and we welcome that.
	The committee echoes and endorses concerns raised by the Oppositionand most often by my right hon. and learned Friendduring the passage of the Bill in 2001 on the so-called Henry VIII powers, but the Government dismissed the committee's recommendation. We strongly agree with the committee. May I take this opportunity to urge the Home Secretary to reconsider his viewmost of all on legislation such as this which impinges so fiercely on individual civil liberties?
	That brings me to the most controversial aspect of the legislation, on which the committee again echoes our view. I refer to detention powers in part 4 relating to foreign nationals. The committee's conclusion in paragraph 203 is unequivocal:
	the Part 4 powers which allow foreign nationals to be detained potentially indefinitely should be replaced as a matter of urgency.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) argued strongly that internment was not the best way of dealing with such cases. Regrettably, the alternatives that he proposed did not persuade the Home Secretary. As a result, under the detention powers, some 14 foreign nationals are being held indefinitely without trial.
	It is undoubtedly the case that such detention is a serious infringement of civil liberties. I do not find the argument that such people can always leave the country particularly persuasive. On the one hand, to return to some countries might, in effect, be to return to death; on the other, releasing people whom we believe to be international terrorists to travel the world seems a peculiar policy. The difficulty is that if the Government are right about those 14 people held under the Act, releasing them could put hundreds or thousands of innocent lives at risk. The Home Secretary is right, and I must recognise that. Nevertheless, because it is such a serious infringement of civil liberty, I agree that the Government should heed the committee's request and seek an alternative. I am glad that the Home Secretary has undertaken to review part 4 over the next six months. I assume that in that review he will consider and seek alternatives. The difficult question is: which alternative will work?
	One area in which I disagree with the Newton committee is on the possibility of tagging, curfews or daily visits to police stations as an alternative to such detention. That is impractical for serious terrorist crimes, let alone for suicide bombers. I welcome the fact that the Government have said that they have no intention of going down that route, although it may be useful for the more minor terrorist crimes. Another solution is needed.
	Everyone agrees that the most desirable way to deal with terrorists is to bring them before the courts. That is where the Home Secretary should be concentrating his effortslooking at aspects of the law that make prosecution more difficult and seeing whether they can be corrected. The Newton committee highlights one aspect in particular, on which we believe the Government should act. Paragraph 208 states:
	In our view one way of making it possible to prosecute in more cases would be to remove the UK's self-imposed blanket ban on the use of intercepted communications in court.
	We agree. That was a conclusion reached by Lord Lloyd in his 1996 review. It has the backing of Lord Carlile. It has been advocated in terrorist cases for many years by the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble). It has had the support of successive Chief Constables in Northern Ireland.
	We understand previous objections to ending the ban: principally, that it would reveal sensitive information about our intercept capability. We believe, however, that the balance of the argument has moved on, especially post-11 September. For example, al-Qaeda sees the United States as its No. 1 enemy. One should assume that its training and tactics are directed against that target. In the United States, however, extensive details of intercept capacity are published. They are a matter of public record. They will therefore already be accounted for in al-Qaeda's behaviour, training and tactics. It is difficult therefore to see how knowledge of our much smaller intercept capacity could make much difference to the training and tactics of al-Qaeda, especially when that is measured against the value of such information in court.
	The committee put up an interesting idea for protecting the evidence from the sort of excursions that we hear so much about in relation to lawyers representing terrorists. The idea of an examining magistrate, or having that as a phase of the evidence gathering, is sensible. I must admit that when I first read it, probably like the Home Secretary, I did not see exactly where it was going. As a phase of evidence gathering, however, and as a way of introducing a cut-out to protect the evidence and the methods used, it seems an eminently sensible approach. The Home Secretary has said that the matter of intercept evidence is one of a number of options under review. That review should be concluded quickly. The ban on intercept communications evidence should be dropped, and I hope that he will again look closely at the committee's proposal, as it is eminently sensible.

Mark Oaten: I am encouraged by the right hon. Gentleman's comments. For clarity, is the thrust of his argument that if alternative measures were put in place, such as the acceptance of intercept communications as part of evidence, the Conservatives would support the removal of part 4?

David Davis: Yes, indeed. The issue that we are considering is one that the hon. Gentleman raised in an intervention on the Home Secretary. In relation to those 14 cases, if he is entirely persuaded beyond reasonable doubt that they are terrorists or would-be terrorists, and they would be expected to be convicted in a process that absorbed those changes, that is a good reason for part 4 to go. That is what we want, ideally, as a result of the review process.
	The difficulty for the House is that we cannot know what the Home Secretary knows. We cannot test each of those cases. Perhaps the committee could do soperhaps its members will tell us that they did test that proposal. We cannot do so, however. I am taking it on faithsomething that one does rarely with Ministers when in oppositionthat the Home Secretary will make a judgment about that in the process of that review.

Several hon. Members: rose

David Davis: I knew that that would provoke everybody. I shall give way first to the ex-Home Office Minister and come to the others shortly.

John Denham: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. This is an important point on which to understand the Opposition's view. For the sake of argumentI am not familiar with the individual cases eitherlet us suppose that seven of the cases could be resolved as criminal cases, were the intercept information available, but the other seven relied on information obtained by the security services through methods that they could not possibly disclose in a criminal trial. Would we not have to conclude that circumstances would exist in which part 4 needed to remain? The alternative would be to release those individuals.

David Davis: I think that the right hon. Gentleman has restated my view. I made the point about 14 cases. Although this depends on something of which I am not certainthe level of evidence on which the Home Secretary's judgment is basedthe Home Secretary said earlier that he set higher hurdles than would apply in a normal court case. If that is true, that should resolve the issue for all 14.

Douglas Hogg: Will my right hon. Friend remind himself, however, that at the end of the day what the Home Secretary is considering is information given to him by the intelligence services? The truth is that they are often wrong, and they were desperately wrong about Iraq. I am very uncomfortable about people being deprived of their liberty on the basis of intelligence information that will always be uncertain and will never be the subject of any certain verification.

David Davis: My right hon. and learned Friend is exactly right. He and I have both been recipients of such information with respect to Iraq in our previous incarnations, and I suspect that we both saw the errors along the way. That is why a judicial processa process of justiceis a better process. That is why there should be a process of challenge. That is why the Newton committee's proposal of an examining magistrate, which allows the examining magistrate, as I understand it, to establish not just when there is incriminating evidence but when there is exculpatory evidencethe very reason lawyers are usually allowed to forage among the evidenceis an important addition. If that could be put in place, it would be an excellent replacement for part 4.

David Blunkett: I merely seek clarification. Obviously the Butler committee will do its work in relation to Iraq. As for the intervention from the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) and the intelligence services, I want to make it entirely clear that we have absolute confidence in the Security Service. We also believe that following the establishment of the joint terrorism and analysis centre, which will be led by the Security Service, the pulling together of information from the Secret Intelligence Service, GCHQ and the Defence Intelligence Staff will be undertaken in a way that all of us will feel able to support.

David Davis: The Home Secretary knows full well that, like the other Members who have intervened so far, I am a great supporter of the Security Service, the Secret Intelligence Service and GCHQ. We also know, however, that owing to the difficulties involved in gathering intelligence it is sometimes unreliable, and may not be sufficient to persuade someone beyond reasonable doubt. That is part of the whole question of challenge that we are discussing.
	This is not an attack on the integrity of any of the intelligence-gathering services. It is simply a recognition of what they know to be a practical problem, and indeed a reflection of advice that virtually all of them have given me in the past, during my time as a Minister.

William Cash: My right hon. Friend raised the issue of what was in the Home Secretary's mind. The Civil Contingencies Bill simply states that what the Home Secretary thinks must be so, but in this context there is no doubt that in issuing a certificate he must have regard to the reasonableness of the judgment that he forms about whether a person's presence is a risk to national security, and to whether he reasonably suspects that the person is a terrorist. That is subject only to two qualifications in relation to sections 25 and 26 of the 2001 Act. The decision can be questioned in court, and the issue of reasonableness on the part of the Home Secretary is then taken into account. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, given the imposition of certain conditions, there is a means whereby there can be a proper challenge to what the Home Secretary does?

David Davis: I am sure that my hon. Friend's interpretation is correct, but it does not meet the requirements for a just process overall that we have been discussing today. That is the point that the committee was making.

Brian Mawhinney: As I may owe my life to intelligence that was relevant when I was a Northern Ireland Minister, I start with a presupposition in favour of the intelligence services. Having declared that interest, let me say that my right hon. Friend has put his finger on one of the fundamental quandaries. It is a question of how to verify intelligence, and how to verify the claim that to reveal intelligence is to undermine the safety of the state. I hope that my right hon. Friend will use the consultation period to enable my party to come up with constructive suggestions of ways in which those two issues can be addressed that will meet the standards that we all want to apply. If it cannot do so, and the Government cannot do so, we shall remain in that quandary for years.

David Davis: That is true, and the difficulty is made much more acute by the consequences of error. When my right hon. Friend was dealing, in a highly effective way, with terrorism in Northern Ireland, even the worst of the events there did not compare with those of 11 September.
	Let me repeat what I said earlier. When I first read the committee's proposal for an examining magistrate, I did not react very well. I do not like the continental procedures for most aspects of the judicial process. It struck me, however, that the committee had hit on something that would allow justice for the victim, verification and a firewall that would enable evidence that could not otherwise be used to be brought into play. That is a very good idea, which we will build on during this consultation process to meet the requirement that my right hon. Friend mentions.

Robert Marshall-Andrews: Of course, the so-called evidence is factual assertion made by the security services, either to the Home Secretary or subsequently to the Special Immigration Appeals Commission. Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that herein lies the root of the problem with SIAC? It is not a court, and the rules that govern it mean that documentation and evidence given to it by the Home Secretary or by the security services is, by definition, cherry-picked. SIAC's rules do not require that all the evidence be placed before it, so what it is getting is a selective version of that evidence. Is that not an intrinsic problem in itself, and an affront to the principle of justice? Unless SIAC can weigh all the evidence, it is impossible for it to see the whole picture.

David Davis: The hon. and learned Gentleman is exactly right, which is why part 4 of the 2001 Act would not be justified under any circumstances other than the asymmetric outcome of getting it wrong. On the one hand, getting it wrong means an injustice to one person, which is dreadful. Indeed, at one point, I intervened on the Home Secretary from a sedentary position to point out that one error is too many, but getting it wrong the other way could mean the loss of many thousands of lives, as we have seen in recent times.

Vera Baird: The right hon. Gentleman is in danger of forgettingas is my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews)that hearsay has been admissible in ordinary criminal trials since the introduction of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. Indeed, the Opposition supported that aspect of the legislation with reasonable enthusiasm. Hearsay is second-hand, third-hand or written material that can now be put into an ordinary criminal trial, but which previously had to be given by oral testimony. In talking about intelligence, are we really talking about matters that are so far away from that principle, which the right hon. Gentleman regards as an acceptable part of the criminal process? I do not think that we are.

David Davis: The hon. and learned Lady's point was, I think, answered by the intervention of my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir Brian Mawhinney), which dealt with the whole question of verification. We are talking, in effect, about sentencing people for lifeor as close to a life sentence as one can ever haveso verification is vital. Unlike the hon. and learned Lady, I am not a lawyer, but the principles of the assumption of innocence, and of proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt, are central to my belief in the law. That is why I consider part 4 of the 2001 Act to be an unacceptable infringement of civil liberties, under any circumstances other than those that currently apply.

Kevin McNamara: rose

David Davis: I have taken quite a lot of interventions, so if I may I shall move on to one other aspect of this controversial section. The Committee made other suggestions that could help to bring about more terrorist prosecutions. On terrorism as an aggravating factor, paragraph 218 of the report states that
	it might be feasible to:
	a. define a set of offences which are characteristic of terrorism and for which it should be possible to prosecute without relying on sensitive material, but
	b. raise the potential penalty where it can be established that there are links with terrorism.
	The Home Secretary said:
	There are already a wide range of criminal and terrorist . . . offences that can be used to bring prosecutions. The Government is considering whether further offences should be introduced.
	Senior police officers have told us that there are gaps in the law that create problems for them in their pursuit of terrorismlacunae in the conspiracy law, for example. When the Minister winds up, I should like her to say when we are likely to see proposals in this area.
	On plea-bargaining, the document published this morning states that there might be
	particular merit in terrorism cases in giving the suspect greater certainty of outcome in the event of co-operation by establishing a sentencing framework within which the accused may be sure of securing a reduced sentence in return for co-operation.
	In their response, the Government say:
	It is customary for timely guilty pleas to receive recognition in the form of a reduction in sentence.
	But plea-bargaining also relates to the defendant's giving evidence to convict other terrorists and to prevent other atrocities. Here, there would be clear problems over witness credibility, but it may nevertheless be a worthwhile tool. I would be grateful if the Minister expanded on the Government's view when she winds up.
	I should like to raise a couple of matters that the Home Secretary has spoken about in recent weeks, but did not mention today. In his usual high-profile way, he has recently floated several ideas, including lowering the burden of proof, trying terrorist cases without juries, using security-vetted judges and counsel, and holding entire trials in secret. Frankly, it is an extraordinary raft of ideas, and although we will examine the fine details of the Home Secretary's proposals, he should be aware of the Opposition's reservations at this stage.
	In our view, it is not only highly dangerous, but totally illogical to move towards lowering the burden of proof for the most serious offences. That would be a deviation too far from the ordinary criminal law. The Home Secretary has made it clear that that is not his intention, which we welcome, but we need to know more about what he means by applying civil orders to those associated with the fringes of terrorism before we make a considered response.
	It would also be helpful if the Home Secretary clarified more about his motivation in bringing forward these ideas at this particular time. Is he saying that the Government have intelligence about large numbers of people who are planning terrorist activities but against whom it is impossible to act? We know from our experience in Northern Ireland about the frustration experienced when known terrorists walk free because of the inadmissibility of intelligence in court, but that should not plunge us into making bad law that overturns centuries of established legal process.
	The same applies to secret trials. If public confidence in the criminal justice system is desirable, and if it is to be maintained, as much of a trial as possible should be held in open court. That has always been the case, even under Diplock in Northern Ireland, where parts of trials could be held in camera when necessary. On single judge courts, is the Home Secretary really saying that jury intimidation in al-Qaeda cases is on the same scale as resulted in Diplock operating for 30 years in Northern Ireland? I do not believe so, and we will need some thorough convincing before following the Home Secretary down that path.
	The powers that the House is examining today are exceptional, as has been apparent from several discussions. Under normal circumstances, many of those powers would not even be contemplated, let alone approved by the House. Regrettably, the threat of terrorism dictates that some are necessary. I agree with the Home Secretary that, without the powers of the 2001 Act, our defences against international terrorism would be severely weakened. For that reason, despite our reservations about part 4, we support the continuance of the Act. However, we call on the Home Secretary to return to the questions raised about part 4 and to review very carefully whether changes in evidence could allow him to replace what is effectively internment with a proper process of justice.

Chris Smith: As one of the Privy Councillors who sat on the Newton committee, I welcome the opportunity that the debate provides for a serious discussion about the difficult issues raised by the Act. I also welcome the consultation that the Government have put in motion, but I am disappointed that they have rejected so conclusively the recommendations that we made in the reportreiterated todayabout part 4. The Government are almost pre-empting, in what they have said, the outcome of the consultation. Over the course of the next six monthsfrom today and over the consultation periodI hope that we can give serious consideration to the criticisms levelled by the Newton committee and its suggestions for possible alternatives.

Douglas Hogg: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that his point is reinforced by the fact that the Joint Committee on Human Rights shares the views of the Newton committee?

Chris Smith: There are many voices to be listened toin both Houses and among the wider publicon the issue, and I hope that the Government will be in listening mode rather than made-up-their-mind mode during the consultation period.
	It is difficult to balance the competing and crucially important issues that face any Government in these circumstances. On the one hand, there is the need to protect public security; on the other, the need to safeguard the civil liberties of the individual. Both duties are incumbent on any Government. When there is the potential for those two requirements to collide, Governments face a difficult task. They must try to find the solution that preserves the most of each of those principles, and that is the task that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary must undertake.
	I want to concentrate on part 4 of the 2001 Act. As it stands, it is not satisfactory. Members of the Privy Counsellor Review Committee included dyed-in-wool Islington libertarians like me, and others of a rather different provenance, such as the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir Brian Mawhinney). However, our conclusions about part 4 were unanimous.
	The Committee identified a number of problems. First, and most importantly, it offends against every principle of liberty and justice on which our democracy is founded to detain people in this country, potentially indefinitely and without specific charge or proper trial. That is true regardless of who they are or where they come from. If it is at all possible to find another way to address these serious issues and difficulties, we should strive as hard as we can to find it. Simply dismissing out of hand the recommendations of the Newton committee does not amount to the strenuous work that is needed.
	Secondly, the existence of part 4 required a derogation from the European convention on human rights. It is noteworthy that, in putting together our response to terrorism, we are the only country in Europe to have sought such a derogation. Other European nations have found robust responses to the problems of terrorism. Rightly, they are as exercised as we are about the dangers of terrorism, but they have not needed the same derogation.

Vera Baird: I hope that my right hon. Friend is not making a false point. No other country has derogated, but high-ranking lawyers have suggested that the French terrorist measures in particular are in breach of the convention.

Chris Smith: My hon. and learned Friend tempts me to say that some of our EU partners uphold the principles of the convention and other provisions more in name than in reality. However, it remains the case the UK has actively sought a derogation. I believe that, if at all possible, we should try to avoid doing so.
	Thirdly, part 4 uses what is effectively an immigration procedure to answer a terrorism problem. I believe that we ought to answer terrorism problems through the action of the criminal law, and if necessary with specialist terrorist measures. We should not spatchcock into the procedure measures supposedly prepared in response to immigration issues.
	The Privy Counsellor Review Committee also identified the central problem that the procedures under part 4 apply only to foreign nationals suspected of being connected with al-Qaeda and associated organisations, and not to UK nationals. However, the committee received evidence that about half of all those suspected of terrorist activity in this country are UK nationals. We should be trying to address those issues every bit as actively as those relating to foreign nationals.
	I hasten to add that the evidence received by the committee showed, without a shadow of doubt, that the Home Secretary has applied the procedures under part 4 conscientiously, assiduously and with the utmost care. It is important to put that firmly on the record. However, those procedures and the principles behind them are deeply flawed and they are not wholly effective.
	In our report, we propose a range of alternatives. I readily acknowledge that none of those alternatives is, by itself, a solution. Indeed, we should not be looking for a single alternative solution to part 4. The committee has tried to put together a range of measures that might add up to an answer. There could be other options that it was not possible for us as a committee to imagine or consider, but that the Home Secretary and the Home Office really should be considering during the next six months. Simply to say that there is no alternative to part 4 is not enough.
	Several of the options that we proposed have already been mentioned during the debate, but I should like to highlight a few of them. The first is the removal of the blanket ban on the use of intercept evidence in open court. In the United States, that happens as a matter of course. Indeed, there have been some successful prosecutions of terrorist associates in the US on the basis of intercept evidence acquired not just by the US intelligence services but by foreign intelligence services. That evidence was used in the US court system and there is no reason that we should not begin to go down that road.
	In the paper that the Government issued this morning, they say that they are reviewing the matter, but they have been reviewing it for years and it is about time that we came to a conclusion and decided that intercept evidence can be used. It does not have to be usedit would be entirely up to the prosecuting authorities to decide whether to use itbut it could be used in court.

Brian Mawhinney: Can the right hon. Gentleman help me? My recollection is that we were given evidence that although British intercept evidence has not been used in British court cases it has already been used in a French court case. Is my memory right?

Chris Smith: I think that the right hon. Gentleman is correct, although I am struggling with my own memory about that point, but I recall that it was mentioned to the committee.

David Davis: I commend the right hon. Gentleman for his part in the production of the report. When he was looking at the American use of intercept evidence, could he identify any major differences in lawother than the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, which we should have to amendthat made it easier to use such evidence in the US than in this country?

Chris Smith: Not that I am aware of; indeed, it seemed to us that the factors preventing the use of such evidence in our courts, rather than being legal issues, were more to do with process and organisation.
	The committee made other suggestions. Much reference has been made to our proposal that an investigating judge system could be used to sift sensitive evidence before a matter is brought to trial. We believe that such a procedure could help the whole process. It could help to establish the validity of a case; indeed, establishing that something could be brought into the open could assist the intelligence authorities to make judgments about whether such evidence could be produced, and so forth. That could be a very helpful element in the process.
	We also suggested that the Government could consider the use of prosecution for other offences that the courts could view as aggravated ones when sentencing in relation to terrorism. Again, that has been successful in the United States where the use of racketeering legislation has been effective. We proposed that more formal use should be made of plea-bargaining. I urge the Government to go beyond the notion of simply an admission of guilt producing a lighter sentence, because many other ways of co-operating could be encouraged, particularly in relation to terrorism offences. Such arrangements need to be put to much greater use.
	We proposed a much greater use of surveillance. Of course I appreciate that close surveillance will require substantial increases in resources; I am very pleased that the Government are putting extra resources into the intelligence services, the staffing of MI5 and enhancing certain police provision. Rather than simply prosecuting people and locking them up, we should, as an alternative, maintain close and effective surveillance. That option seems not only desirable as a means of avoiding incarceration without trial, but it may be more sensible in countering terrorism.
	The FBI told us very openly when we were in Washington that, in many cases, it prefers to keep people under watch than to take them in and lock them up because it finds out a lot more about their intentions and those of their organisations by watching them, keeping them under surveillance, following them and knowing what they are planning to do. We ought to think seriously about that as well.

Kevin McNamara: May I refer my right hon. Friend back to his statement about the number of British subjects who are likely to be involved in terrorism? Was he given any information about the degree of surveillance over them and the methods being adopted by the security services? If that surveillance is going on, it powerfully strengthens his present argument.

Chris Smith: Of course I am not at liberty to reveal all the evidence that we saw; but, yes, considerable surveillance activity is indeed taking place, and rightly so. Irrespective of whether someone is a British citizen or a foreign national, one of the basic principles should be that the protection that we as a society need should be the same whoever happens to pose the threat.
	Finally, we also proposed restricting suspected individuals' access to bank accounts, telephone communications and so on as a means of providing some protection for society without denying those individuals their total liberty as part 4 does.
	I am very glad that the Home Secretary has said that he will consider many of the Newton committee's recommendations, but I plead with him to show at least some concern about the central issue in relation to part 4: its fundamental overturn of a central principle on which the stability and liberty of our society is based. If it is at all possible to identify not just one alternative but a range of alternatives that, taken together, can provide something better for our society, it is surely incumbent on the House to try to find them.

Mark Oaten: I beg to move, To leave out from House to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
	welcomes the Privy Counsellor Review Committee Report on the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001; and calls upon the Government to act on the Committee's recommendation to repeal Part 4 of the Act and replace it with alternative provisions for monitoring and prosecuting suspected terrorists which do not require the suspension of basic human rights.
	Liberal Democrat Members acknowledge that the Home Secretary has an incredible responsibility for the whole country in ensuring that the provisions in law that he introduces protect us all as citizens. In tabling the amendment, we in no way wish to suggest that he is not fulfilling that responsibility properly. That is a big burden on a Home Secretary, who has to make difficult and complex judgments. I believe that the current Home Secretary does so with a great deal of care. I hope, however, that he will acknowledge in return that Opposition Members have a responsibility to probe and to test the Government on these issues.
	It was with that in mind that we tabled the amendment. We believe that, as the report says, a balance has to be struck between the Home Secretary's need to ensure that he protects us, as citizens, from terror, and the need to ensure that we have good, proper principles of justice that protect the privacy and liberty of individuals. We wish to explore the latter aspect of that balance. In doing so, however, I state for the record that we all have to make difficult judgments, especially the Home Secretary. If an incident were to occur, the Home Secretary would obviously be responsible for taking on that burden.
	The report is excellent and helps us to deal with those difficult balances. I pay tribute to the Privy Councillors who came together on a cross-party basis to put forward its recommendations. We have heard from the right hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith), so I hope that my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) will be able to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker.
	We welcome the tone used by the Home Secretary this afternoon and the language used in the discussion paper that he launched this morning. I welcome the suggestion that there should be a six-month review of these measures. If I had known that yesterday, we might have taken a slightly different view of whether we wished to table an amendment, because the point of it was to tell the Home Secretary that it was unacceptable to continue to implement these measures without undertaking a more urgent review. By introducing the six-month review, the Home Secretary shows that he recognises, to some extent, that a more urgent response is required than merely noting the contents of the Privy Councillors' report, as the Government's motion suggests.
	The timing of the debate is appropriate, not only because of tomorrow's debate on the statutory instrument that takes the measure forward, but because, following the recent events in Camp Delta, there has again been a focus on the principle of holding individuals without charge. There should be no possibility of a similar situation in this country. Of course, I accept that there are different technical circumstances, but the underlying principle is the same.
	Although Parliament debated these systems and structures two years ago, and they have been in place since then, we face the same threatening situation. I do not buy the argument that things have moved on and there is less of a threat now than there was then. Although there has not been an atrocity in recent months, that does not mean for one minute that we do not still live in an extremely difficult situation. The Home Secretary knows about that threat better than anyone else.
	Last year, Liberal Democrat Members decided not to vote against the provision to continue part 4, because there was a tense situation and no alternatives had been proposed. However, we judge that now the time is right to address these issues. Tomorrow, when the statutory instrument is debated in Committee, we will oppose the Government's plans.
	The Newton report's recommendations on part 4 are important, because there are several key reasons why it is time to look at it again. We should remind ourselves that we are the only European country that has sought a derogation from that part of the European convention. I accept the point made by the hon. and learned Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) that other countries may be sailing close to the wind, but their behaviour could be challenged. If the French fell foul of the convention, somebody could mount a challenge. However, we remain the only country that has sought a derogation and kept it in place.

Vera Baird: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware that the derogation is repeatedly subject to challenge in the British courts. That is partly the basis of assault on it at SIAC and in the Court of Appeal, and no doubt that will be the case in the House of Lords. There is an opportunity to challenge the derogation.

Mark Oaten: I accept the hon. and learned Lady's point, but individuals in other European countries have an opportunity to make a challenge.
	The recommendations in the Privy Council report provide an opportunity to look again at whether we want to retain part 4 of the 2001 Act. The Privy Councillors' language is not mild. They recommend things strongly and say that they are deeply concerned. I hope that the Home Secretary accepts the general principle that if one establishes a set of individuals to review a system, there is a serious obligation to listen to their findings. The period of time for which the measures have been in place is another reason why there should be a review.
	First, it is not right to hold individuals indefinitely without any idea of what their long-term prospects are. My right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed highlighted a second reason why time is a critical consideration. We do not know when the war on terrorism will be over, and have introduced temporary measures to tackle a situation that we may have assumed after 11 September was temporary. However, it has become clear that it is not, so we surely need more permanent solutions to tackle a situation that, I suspect, we will have to live with for many years to come.
	The third reason why it is appropriate to look at part 4 now is the growing evidence of some of the tensions that it is causing among the Muslim population in this country. If they feel that the rights of fellow Muslims are less important, the good will and community relations that we need to continue building in those groups will surely be undermined. I do not necessarily share his sentiments, but the president of the Muslim Association of Britain said:
	This legislation will only lead to a society that is divided, shattered, rife with hatred, heaving with racism, with no promise of a prosperous future.
	I do not believe that that is an entirely accurate view of the consequences of the legislation, but we must acknowledge that many members of that community share that sentiment.
	Having set out my arguments for reviewing and removing part 4, the Home Secretary would be right to ask me and others what we would do, as we have to be responsible about these issues. There are two problems in answering that honestly and with clarity, as the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis) suggested. I do not know the detailed circumstances of the individuals who are currently being held. I can offer a range of suggestions, and endorse and support the recommendations of the Newton committee, but for some individuals held in Belmarsh, surveillance, tagging and intercepts would not be adequate. If, for example, there were any evidence or suggestion that one of them was determined to take part in a suicide attack, I acknowledge that some of my suggestions would not deal adequately with such a threat. Without knowledge of individual cases, I accept that it is difficult to produce alternative solutions.
	The right hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury touched on the fact that no single measure could deal with all the casesa package of measures must be put in place. The right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham) was right to ask the Conservative spokesman, What if intercepted communications deal with only seven of the cases? That is a problem and a contradiction, but perhaps I can respond by saying that the other seven cases may be tackled by better surveillance and that different techniques, including some of the measures that the Newton committee suggested, would serve for different individuals who are currently being held. However, I revert to the fundamental point that, without knowing the individual cases, it is difficult to ascertain the measures that would work in each case.
	Let us consider the Newton report. Before we examine the detail of new technology and surveillance, one recommendation has not been mentioned enough: making more use of the existing, normal criminal justice system. The report referred to the case in January 2002 of two Algerians who were charged with membership of al-Qaeda. The charge was dropped before trial but, a year later, they were both jailed for 11 years after being found guilty of raising cash for terrorism. That made them the first people with suspected al-Qaeda links to be imprisoned in Britain. The case shows that existing criminal law may afford opportunities to succeed in getting prosecutions. If a lower charge made it possible to convict, sentence and imprison an individual, that would be preferable to detaining someone without charge for a more serious crime.

Douglas Hogg: One of the mischiefs of the power to detain under part 4 as it stands is that it removes the incentive for the prosecution authorities to strive strenuously to bring a prosecution in conventional terms.

Mark Oaten: The right hon. and learned Gentleman makes an excellent point, which reverts to the question whether our starting point should be ascertaining whether we can find another form of crime that would lead to a satisfactory prison sentence and thus provide the necessary security against any terror threat. I hope that the Home Secretary will acknowledge that that should be the starting point, and not seeking a different sort of prosecution that will be difficult to achieve. In the case of the 14 individuals who are being held, I hope that every effort has been made to find another way of detaining them on full charge.
	Let us consider intercepted communications and relaxing their blanket use. I do not want to repeat all the arguments that have been presented, but I hope that the Minister for Citizenship and Immigration will provide some clarification about what appears to be an ongoing review. The Government seem to have committed themselves in the past to a review of the blanket ban. I hope that the Minister can confirm that the review will be completed at the same time as the six-month review of the Newton report that the Home Secretary mentioned. Logic suggests that the two have to happen together because the use of intercepted communications is a critical way forward. It would be a pity if the reviews were not completed at the same time.
	Liberal Democrat Members are more than happy to accept that, although the use of surveillance, technology and intercepted communications is not ideal, it is preferable to some of what the Home Secretary raised in connection with his trip to India and Pakistan. I want to deal with that later. However, in the fight against terrorism, Liberal Democrats prefer the route that makes use of every form of technology available to achieve a good conviction to meddling with and changing the principles of our constitution and justice. We must get that the right way round. We therefore strongly support the Government's relaxing of the blanket ban.
	I accept the Home Secretary's arguments that the matter is not as simple as it sounds and that using the information entails a danger of revealing the sources and the evidence. However, the Newton report states that the Government have currently got the balance wrong. It states that it has not been struck in the right place if intercepted communications can never be used evidentially. Much more could be done on that.

Vera Baird: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. Does he know that, in court cases in the UK, frequent use is made of foreign phone taps, which are admitted not daily, but certainly on a weekly basis? Shortly before I entered the House, I worked on a case concerning an Anglo-Dutch drug ring in which phones had undoubtedly been intercepted at both ends, but the English intercept could not be used while the Dutch intercept could. The Dutch police had no worries about disclosing their operational methodologythe defence expert was allowed to examine the machinery used to make an intercept.

Mark Oaten: The hon. and learned Lady makes a powerful point. The world is moving forward quickly and, as she has already pointed out, we are not that far away from making progress. The Newton report contains a couple of suggestions about how we can protect sources for evidencefor example, the use of special advocates or, as is the case in France, a judge who can access the information. There are ways forward, and we hope that the Home Secretary will address the issue sooner rather than later.
	On surveillance, it is bizarre to suggest that some of those individuals should be tagged and, if there were a genuine fear of terrorism, I acknowledge that it would not be sufficient for them to pop into a police station every now and then. With the available technology and the increased resources announced by the Home SecretaryI accept that he cannot clarify whether they have already been put in place or are for the futuresufficient surveillance staff should be available to MI5.
	Surveillance is a powerful tool not only in obtaining evidence to achieve a prosecution but in preventing terrorism. It is also a powerful tool because we could release some of the individuals whom we hold and place them under surveillance. A surveillance package that examines not only tagging but all the technologyI accept that it is expensive and time-consumingwould be a sensible way forward. I hope that the Home Secretary will carefully examine how to implement more surveillance. However, surveillance would not be sufficient to tackle the threat of a suicide attack, if it exists.
	I conclude by touching on some issues that I am surprised the Home Secretary has not raised today, because journalists such as Alan Travis from The Guardian raised them with him when he was in India and Pakistan. Those issues greatly concern Liberal Democrat Members and the legal profession, and it would be helpful to get rid of some them here and now and take them off the agenda.
	Lowering the standard of proof is a matter for considerable concern. As I said earlier, Liberal Democrat Members say yes to new technology and new forms of evidence collection, but we have serious concerns about examining the lowering of the standard of proof. The standard of proof has already been lowered in such cases in relation to reasonable suspicion and reasonable belief. Although I accept that the Home Secretary has gone to some lengths in addressing the matter, we would be concerned if he went further. Can he confirm that his six-month review will not examine reducing the standard of proof? It looks like the review will cover that point, because he is not intervening.

David Blunkett: I am waiting for the hon. Gentleman to finish.

Mark Oaten: I also hope that the Home Secretary can clarify his thinking on security-vetted judges and trials by judges alone. Again, Liberal Democrat Members are concerned about breaking into long-held establishments.
	FinallyI touched on this point in an earlier intervention on the Home SecretaryLiberal Democrat Members support the move to strengthen our intelligence services, which do a valuable job and play a valuable role. Without prejudging the Butler report, we may discover that the intelligence services have been undervalued and under-resourced and that they have not received the proper technology in previous years.
	Without prejudging that report, I hope that the Home Secretary's announcement that staffing up is taking place is an acknowledgement that one way to tackle the terror threat is to make sure that we have the necessary resources and the skills of individuals on the ground. Perhaps the Minister can comment on the difficulty of making sure that we recruit from the right communities, because intelligence is about making sure that we can talk to and be involved in, for example, Muslim communities in this country. That is complex and difficult. I hope that when we look at staffing up and resourcing, we shall have in mind in particular the ability to talk to those individual communities.

David Blunkett: I was waiting to intervene until we had coalesced around the New Delhi speech.
	I can confirm that it is not my intention to lower the standard of proof in criminal cases. I cannot confirm that it is not our position that there will be times when a judge sitting alone will be appropriate in cases in which the jury may well be under more than intimidation. I do not accept that, as was said earlier, juries are not under threat from al-Qaeda. They are under very considerable threat.

Mark Oaten: I am grateful to the Home Secretary for clarity on that matter. His first answer gave me some comfort. His second just raised a further question. At the height of some situations in Northern Ireland with regard to the IRA, it was not the case that juries felt under particular threat. While there may be a perception among some individuals that there is more of a concern about al-Qaeda, the Home Secretary will have to make a strong case about why the circumstances are different from those in some of the trials in relation to Northern Ireland.
	I conclude by reiterating from these Benches our strong support for the Home Secretary in a difficult job. Our solution is to look at ways to improve the ability to achieve a successful prosecution. We much prefer that route to taking away some of the pillars of the establishment that have protected justice in this country for so many years.
	We welcome the review that the Home Secretary has put in place, and we hope that in six months he will announce that he is in a position to abolish part 4, but we shall seek to divide the House because we feel that the issue has gone on for too long and needs to be brought to a head.

John Denham: I thank my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary for the way in which he introduced the debate and for moving it forward.
	I should perhaps begin by declaring, if not an interest, at least culpability with regard to the legislation that we are considering, because I was a Home Office Minister when it was introduced. I shall support its renewal, because I believe that maintaining part 4 is necessary. I reached that conclusion more by a process of elimination than from a fundamental point of principleby looking at the other options available and concluding that there would be circumstances in which part 4 was necessary.
	While I agree that it is desirable to minimise the use of part 4, I cannot go as far as the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten), who leads for the Liberal Democrats in this matter. He starts by aiming for its abolition and works backwards from there, whereas I start from the other end of the discussion. I shall say a little more about the reason in a moment.
	The whole tone of today's debate is remarkably different from that of the debate when the Act was passed. That is very useful, because at that time our dialogue did not meet in the middle. On the one hand, it was driven by people, including Home Office Ministers, who were desperately concerned to put in place measures to deal with a serious and, as we saw it then, long-lasting terrorist threat. On the other hand, there were people in and around this placeI exclude many of the hon. Members who have spoken todaywho did not entirely accept that there was a long-term, almost semi-permanent state of threat and who argued from the position that any diminution of our traditional liberties was bound to be wrong, no matter what was necessary to meet the terrorist threat.
	Not least due to the intervention of Lord Newton and Lord Carlile and those whom they worked with, as well as the way in which my right hon. Friend has addressed us this afternoon, the debate is now moving on. It is much more centred on what needs to be done to meet the terrorist threat while protecting civil liberties wherever possible.

Jeremy Corbyn: Has my right hon. Friend or the Select Committee on Home Affairs given any consideration to the dangers of miscarriages of justice being perpetrated at six-monthly intervals by constant renewals of detention orders because of the lack of transparency in the legal process?

John Denham: The straightforward answer is that the Home Affairs Committee has not examined that issue during my period of chairmanship. One of the reasons why part 4 is not an ideal piece of legislation is because it clearly carries some risk. As I shall say at greater length in a moment, I have reached the view that part 4 is currently necessary by a process of elimination because there are some circumstances in which no other satisfactory option seems to be available.

Douglas Hogg: Has not the hon. Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) made a serious point? If the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham) reads paragraph 200 of the Newton report, he will find that the committee expresses great concern about the fact that there is no continuing supervision of each case to determine whether continued detention is just. In other words, Lord Newton says that injustices are now taking place.

John Denham: I am not entirely sure that Lord Newton was saying that injustices are now taking place; he and his colleagues were clearly highlighting a concern about the operation of part 4. The Government should properly take that worry into account during their review of part 4, and many other elements of Lord Newton's report should be discussed seriously.
	I take the view, not least because of the changed nature of the debate, that the 2001 Act might not be the last word on the anti-terrorism legislation that we need, so I look forward to the debate that will take place over the next six months. I also believe that it is right to consider such legislation alongside the proposed review of serious crime legislation. It is central to British policing practice that terrorism is first and foremost a crime, so it would not be right to separate the two pieces of legislation entirelyI am glad that that will not happen.
	On part 4 itself, we must take seriously the recommendation on the use of intercept information. I would go further and ask the Minister to consider in the review whether other elements of information that come from the security services could be used to support criminal prosecutions in some circumstances, although I understand the deep-seated cultural reluctance to do that. I share the huge respect that other hon. Members have for the security services, but the truth is that the nature of security services information varies from that received from highly placed sources who really know what they are talking about to recycled press cuttings and marketplace gossip. There might be certain types of information that could be used to support prosecutions, even though I accept that there must be a central defence of the integrity of the security services.
	It is worth exploring the idea of the investigating magistrate, as it has been called in the debate. The Home Secretary is right to say that that procedure would not solve the problem of a criminal case in which very sensitive information would be shared with the defence. That is one reason for concluding that part 4 will always be necessary in some circumstances. However, a filtering of the processthere might be advantages of taking all the onus of responsibility off the Home Secretary and putting it on to a judicial figureis certainly worth debating over the months ahead. I have not taken a firm view on that matter, but we should consider it.
	I want to make a couple of remarks about the broader political context in which we are discussing the legislation. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary gave a robust response to the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik), who asked about the politics behind the terrorist movement. Morally speaking, I absolutely agree with my right hon. Friend's outright condemnation of suicide bombing. However, I am not sure that that is the right basis on which we should plan our anti-terrorism strategy and introduce anti-terrorism legislation.
	What I shall now say will be brief. Several right hon. and hon. Members know more about the subject than I do, so I apologise if it is far too crude. Europe has experienced two types of terrorism over the past 20 or 30 yearsprior to the current threat. We have had, in the form of Baader-Meinhof or the Red Brigades, terrorist organisations that had essentially no social base whatever. They may have had a loose network of supporters, but they represented very little in the way of popular social movements in their countries. We have had in Northern Ireland and the Basque country terrorist organisations thatwhether we like it or nothave reflected broad social movements, to the extent to which people who would never dream of committing a terrorist act have none the less voted for political parties that shared the same political objectives as the terrorists.We have dealt with the terrorism of Baader-Meinhof and the Red Brigades by policing and security measures. In the case of terrorists with a social base, we have required political solutions alongside the policing and security measures.
	It is difficult to assess the nature of al-Qaeda globally, but I fear that part of the international strategy against al-Qaedaparticularly the way that the Americans describe ittreats it as though it is some sort of global Baader-Meinhof. It treats it as a network of people who have no social base and no social support, rather than as a network of people whowhether we like it or notreflect a view of the world that is shared by people who are sympathetic to its objectives, if not its methods. If I am right, it is true that we will not be entirely secure from that type of terrorism until some of the underlying political issues have been successfully addressed. We need to take that into account when we consider counter-terrorism strategy in this country.
	The aspect of the commentary that the Home Secretary has published today from which I take most pleasure is his conclusion, which I am sure is based on good intelligence advice, that by far the greatest threat in this country at the moment is from foreign rather than British nationals. One of our fundamental aims must be to keep it that way. Those of us who work well with the Muslim community, or like to feel that we do, know that there are people in the Muslim community who would never have anything to do with terrorism but who share the global view of the injustices, as they see it, that have been done to Muslims around the world. They reject the way in which they believe the west has handled these issues in the past. That view exists and is expressed. It is among that group of people that those who might raise funds, win moral support and even recruit for al-Qaeda will seek to work.
	It must be central to our strategy and to everything that we doit must be the bedrock of our real securitythat we ensure that we do everything possible to enable the great Muslim majority who reject terrorism to isolate those who wish to advocate al-Qaeda's approach to problems. Equally, we must try to persuade those who hold a different world view that, although it is perfectly proper for them to propagate it, it is not in their interests to pursue it through any form of support for terrorism.
	If that is right, a number of conclusions can be drawn on how the Government need to conduct the debate over the next six months. The first obvious point is for those who have suggested that the right way to deal with part 4 is to apply it equally to the British community. We must make it clear that that would be a fatal mistake. It would mean applying detention laws not to the British population in general butbecause part 4 applies only to al-Qaedato the British Muslim population alone. The counter-productive effects of that would be absolutely disastrous.
	We must also have a detailed dialogue with the Muslim community about some of the other proposals that the Home Secretary has, quite understandably, floated today. I refer to the proposals for crimes of association with the wrong type of people and, if I have understood it, the idea that someone who is done for credit card fraud might have their sentence bumped up because of secret information that they are involved in terrorism. Such proposals might be counterproductive if they are not fully understood and supported by people in the Muslim community, who must be convinced that they are necessary in helping them to isolate those who would like to argue the case for terrorism.
	We must take discussions forward in the next six months with enormous sensitivity. We must have effective security and intelligence, and good policing. However, our greatest bulwark against the type of terrorism that we now face is the support, and active involvement and commitment, of the majority of Muslims in this country, who reject terrorism. They must be brought alongside us during the next six months on measures that we discuss in the House, not as an afterthought.

Brian Mawhinney: First, I welcome the fact that we are having this debate. That is not because it reflects the hard work that my colleagues and I put into the report, but because it is on a matter of such fundamental importance to the whole country that had there not been a proper debate, people would have been surprised.
	I join those who have welcomed the Home Secretary's announcement that he is making more resources available for surveillance and the Secret Service. Perhaps because a majority of members of the review committee are former Ministers, and have all had experience of arm-wrestling with the Treasury, we were careful to produce a report that was not a shopping list of items of huge Government expenditure. Indeed, the only serious expenditure recommendation in the whole report was to spend more money on surveillance, so it is a matter of some satisfaction that the Home Secretary has acted on that.
	I welcome the announcement, to my knowledge first trailed by the Minister for Citizenship and Immigration on television on Sunday, that there is to be a serious debate. As the Home Secretary said today, to arrive at a point three months before the legislation's end in 2006, and then to wonder what to do, would be an insupportable way of governing. We have therefore started a process. I shall return to the reasons for that later in my contribution, but I very much welcome it.
	It is also right to start by thanking the Secretary of State. He observed scrupulously the undertaking that he made to the review group at the start of the process that we would have access to whatever material we wished to see, and it is right for those of us who were the beneficiaries of that to acknowledge it on the Floor of the House. I also thank my colleagues on the committee. It was an interesting experience, and a new one for me. I have to say that had I known before we started how hard and long we were going to work, I might have paused before so enthusiastically accepting the invitation. However, we not only worked hard; we worked together closely. In that regard, I am sure I am not the only one who wants to thank Angela Harris and those who worked with her. As her colleagues who staffed the committee are active civil servants, I will observe the convention and not mention their names; but I, for one, am extremely grateful to them.
	I endorse what has already been repeated on the tone of this debate. Had the review committee not been comprised of old war horses, we might have been tempted ever so slightly to be offended by the Home Secretary's initial reaction when the report was published last December. Happily, we have moved way beyond that point. He has made a constructive contribution in response today and, unlike the right hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith), I think that there is much more room for movement by the Government before the matter is concluded. Considering how far the Home Secretary has moved between December and February, I hold out great hopes that many more of our recommendations will be in legislation before the debate is concluded.
	One other point that needs to be made, so I may as well make it, is that we made a conscious judgment that the committee was not an alternative Government. It was not our job to come up with a different, coherent, complete Government policy. That is why we recommended things to consider and suggested matters that should be explored, but stopped very far short of trying to put in place an alternative policy to the Government's. We therefore left ourselves open occasionally to the charge that individual proposals would not meet this or that contingency. That is right, but such matters are nevertheless worth exploring and pursuing.
	I remind the House, first, that the committee took a unanimous view that this country faces a security threat. So there was no debate about whether security was needed. It is important to stress that. Secondly, there was unanimous agreement that, in those circumstances, unusual impositions on society and individuals are justified for the common good. I flew back overnight from Boston, and perhaps because my mind was partly on this debate, I was impressed by how much we have all adjusted to the current impositions on our aviation travel. They are impositions; such measures were not in place five or 10 years ago, but we accept them because we understand that there are threats that must be taken seriously.
	Thirdly, the Committee was unanimous on the business of the use of intercepted communications. The subject has been touched on; indeed, I intervened on the matter earlier. We in the committee were slightly cynical, to be honest, in suspecting that the Government are using the phrase this policy is being reviewed as an example of some of the longest grass in politics. The ball needs to be retrieved from that long grass. There is widespread acceptance of the use of such communications. As I am sure the Minister knows, they will be introduced in this country because the Government will reach the point where it will be indefensible not to do so, as they are being used in the rest of the world. I therefore hope that she will take the opportunity of the review to deal with the issue once and for all and to improve our court procedures as a consequence.
	There was also a unanimous view that a balance needs to be struck between the security of the nation and the rights of individuals. Indeed, there was a unanimous view that part 4 is neither proportionate nor reasonable, and is not sustainable. I should make it clear, as does the report, that no one is suggesting that the Government should remove part 4 tomorrow, not because the problems with it are not relevant to tomorrow, but because everyone recognises that some framework must be in place and that to leave a massive gap would not be good governance or in the best interests of the nation.
	The right hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury referred to me, and I want to link myself to his remarksI am sorry that the Home Secretary has left the Chamber. I suspect that there are very few in this House or further afield who would see either of us as what the tabloids would refer to as bleeding-heart liberals. Come 1 May, I will have spent 25 years in the House defending the principles of the liberal democracy in which I believe. Each one of us has our own additional personal motivation. I suppose that mine springs in part from my Christian faith. The individual in a liberal democracy is important, so a balance must be struck.
	What we must not do in a liberal democracy is sink to the level of the terrorist. This Government have faced many difficult issues in Northern Ireland over the past six years. Those are different from the issues that some of us faced when we were Ministers. Too frequently, I stood in front of a barrage of television cameras and radio microphones trying to find the words to condemn the atrocities that were blowing people into eternity, and trying to uphold the principles of our liberal democracythe rule of lawand the determination to get the perpetrators within the framework of the rule of law. Those of us who were Ministersand I am sure that it is true in another sense for all Members of Parliamentfrom time to time are urged to take action that is the equivalent morally of the sort of behaviour that the terrorists pursue. We must therefore find a way to uphold those principles of liberal democracy, and those principles of the rule of law, while at the same time defending the integrity as well as the civil rights and dignity of individuals.
	We all understand that the legislation was brought forward in a hurry. There had been no coherent, considered development of a policy to deal with terrorism or the time to translate any such policy into legislation. I see the former Minister, the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham), nodding in agreement at that analysis. It is understandableI have no problem with the fact that the Government introduced legislation in those circumstances, because somewhat ill considered legislation in those circumstances was better than no legislation at all.

Jeremy Corbyn: The right hon. Gentleman is making a most interesting contribution. In relation to all his dealings in Northern Ireland during the 1980s and 1990s, does he think that the prevention of terrorism Act did much to reduce tensions or was it the two ceasefires and the political process that achieved a modicum of peace in Northern Ireland compared with what went before?

Brian Mawhinney: The hon. Gentleman will not rememberand I shall not bore the House by going down memory lanethat I was the first Minister who was asked by the Government to explore whether a peace process was possible. In part, that was because I had long advocated the idea that ultimately a solution had to be found in a political context. He should have no doubt, however, that the strength and commitment of the Government to security and trying to offer protection to the people provided an indispensable part of the foundation on which those other political policies emerged. I have no doubt about that whatever.
	As I was saying, the legislation was rushed, and was tagged on to immigration legislationthat has been explored in depth, and I do not intend to go any further into it. It differentiates United Kingdom nationals and non-United Kingdom nationals, and deals only with the latter. Evidence to us, however, suggested that perhaps half of those who are in the frame as a matter of concern to the security forces are UK nationals. This legislation provides no ability whatever to deal with them. I understand the point made earlier about not wanting to stigmatise, which I accept, but terrorism legislation, which is supposed to be legislation for the United Kingdom, that does not deal with half of the identified problem is not very impressive.
	Thirdly, there is an inherent problem at the heart of the policythe only solution for non-UK nationals is to get them out of the country. The Home Secretary keeps telling us, however, that we are faced with a global threat. Moving them out of this country to some other country therefore does nothing to resolve the global threat. They may be just as much of a danger to United Kingdom nationals out of the country as they would be in the country.
	Let me return for a moment to the subject of Northern Ireland. Given parallel issues of this kind, it was recognised in the legal system that change was necessary, and it came in the form of Diplock courts. They broke the rules that were normal, but they did a fundamentally important job. They were not justified on the grounds that the justice they meted out, if judged on the basis of success in the Appeal Court, was at least as good as that provided through the normal jury process; that was not their raison d'tre. Their raison d'tre was the fact that in circumstances in which it was difficult to do the normal, the Government were so committed to the legal process that they were willing to contemplate the abnormal. That included public interest immunity certificates and the like. I feel that the Government should adopt the same open-ended, open-minded approach today.

William Cash: My right hon. Friend may have noticed that I am troubled by one aspect of the Newton committee's report. I should like to know what he thinks about it. When the Home Secretary has reasonable cause to believe that a person is a suspect, or a terrorist, the courts have the right to adjudicate, subject to conditions that I mentioned earlier. Against the background of the terrorist threat, is that not a reasonable starting point? If we dismiss part 4 as it stands, what will we put in its place?

Brian Mawhinney: I agree that it is a reasonable starting point. As I said earlier, the Government had to produce legislation in a hurry, without having thought the whole process throughand the safeguards written into it are important: my hon. Friend and I agree on that. What I do not find acceptable is the prospect of people spending years and years incarcerated without having any evidence presented to them, and without being given an opportunity to test it in the historic tradition of the United Kingdom. I personally, and the committee generally, therefore felt that while the provision was a good starting point, it was not a good finishing point.

Douglas Hogg: Those people will be detained without there being any finding that they have done anything wrong. All that can be said is that there are reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that the section 21 criteria have been met. That is different.

Brian Mawhinney: Yes, it is different. This is part of the general ambience of concern that led us to make our proposals.
	There is another part of the Act that I think Members do not consider as worrying as they ought to. I refer to the wide dissemination of personal information that it allows. All sorts of Government bodies have access to information that many of us here have spent decades trying to prevent them from obtainingnot because we wanted to be awkward, but because we believed that the individual had a right to an element of privacy. I have no time to elaborate on that, but I remind the House that the committee unanimously recommended that
	the Government should legislate to provide independent external oversight of the whole disclosure regime . . . to provide a safeguard against abuse and to ensure that rigorous procedural standards governing disclosure are applied across the range of public bodies, prosecuting authorities and intelligence and security agencies.
	That quote is from the summary in part 3 of the report. I hope that the review will focus on the safeguards that are needed, which leads me to my third concern about this legislation.
	The legislation is a rag-bag. Those of us who have been Ministers know that when one arrives in a Department, civil servantsGod bless themreach into their pigeonholes and provide all the legislation that, they say, is absolutely crucial and necessary and must be introduced before Christmas. Indeed, that is what happened in this case. It became known in the Home Office that a Bill was to be introduced, so the terrorist bit got put in, police powers got put in and criminal justice bits got put in. Indeed, everything else bar the kitchen sink got put in, including bits of legislation that had already been put before, and rejected by, Parliament. However, they were recycled because the supposition was that, given the terrorist nature of the legislation, it would all get through. And of course, that supposition was proved to be right.
	My point is an important one. If we are to ask the people of this country to accept certain draconian impositions on their lives and the way in which they live them, such impositions must be linked explicitly to terrorism; they cannot be bundled into all sorts of things. An extremely unfortunate event occurred recently, whereby terrorism legislation was used to disband a perfectly legal demonstration in the City. That is a matter of concernor at least it ought to beto Members on both sides of this House. That is why we made such an issue of the mainstreaming of legislation.
	I understand the point that the Home Secretary makesI have been there, done that and got the T-shirt. There is always a battle each year about which Bills will make it into the Queen's Speech, so no member of the Committee expected the Home Secretary to rip up the entire terrorism Bill and produce new mainstream legislation. But, equally, I hope that the Minister will not use extensively the argument that these issues cannot be addressed because of the pressure on parliamentary time. There is a democratic need to disaggregate police and criminal justice legislation from terrorism legislation.
	So that I can be consistent, I should point out that when we debated this legislation on Second Reading and in Committee on the Floor of the House, I expressed considerable reservations about the issue of religious hatred as dealt with in part 5. [Interruption.] It is clear that the Minister remembers. We have a unanimous recommendation to which I subscribe, but having listened to the evidence I am no more impressed by the arguments for part 5 than I was when the House first considered them. We heard evidence that at least some in the Muslim community regard part 5 simply as a sop to them. I should point out to the Government that gesture politics and sops are dangerous things, which is part of the reason why we said that, in future, there should be mainstreaming legislation.

Joyce Quin: rose

Brian Mawhinney: Are we going to continue our debate?

Joyce Quin: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. As he knows, I took a very different view from him in committee and strongly supported part 5, but I agree that we should welcome what the Home Secretary said today about mainstreaming, and about dealing with these issues on their own merits in an appropriate framework.

Brian Mawhinney: We worked hard to have a unanimous report and we were unanimous on this issue. I would not wish to cause even a ripple to float across the surface of that unanimity, but given that it was my contribution, I suspect, to the Second Reading debate on this subject that got me on to the committee in the first place, I thought it right to reaffirm that I have not changed my personal views, even though I support the committee's recommendation.
	So we need new legislation: we need it to be thought through, widely consulted on, coherent and terrorist-based; and we need it to focus on the rights and responsibilities of the individual. If we do so, we will achieve greater public and parliamentary support. We must not sacrifice the right of the individual to accommodate our pre-existing structures. We must start with security and the rights of individuals, and shape our structures and legislation to that end. If we have that mindset, the state is worth defending and the country will be safer.

David Winnick: The right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir Brian Mawhinney) made one point to which I should like to respond immediately. He argued that the Act had been wrongly used against protesters and demonstratorsand I could not agree more. There is no justification whatever for the Act to be used against people who are demonstrating and have every right to demonstrate. The police were in the wrong and I hope that there will be no repetition of what occurred.
	I shall support the Government tonight in the Division and I agree with what my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has told the House today. However, I am unhappyit would be strange if one were notwhen people are detained outside the criminal justice system. The rightful position of Parliament is to protect everyone in the country, whether they are citizens of the country, ordinary residents without citizenship or foreign nationals. We believe in the rule of law.
	There is, however, a dilemma. It has been said before, and I make no apology for repeating the fact again, that as a democracy we do face a dilemma, because a balance has to be struck between protecting the country and our citizensthe first responsibility of Government and of Parliament itselfand ensuring at the same time that the rule of law applies in the normal way. It is a dilemma, and we are not the only democracy to face it.
	Some people writing or broadcasting outside Parliament sometimes convey the impression that we are exaggerating the terrorist danger and that 9/11 was a one-off occurrence in western countriesa point to which I shall return in a few moments.
	As we know, when the Act was being passed, fears were expressed that it would lead to a relatively large number of foreign nationals being held in detention, but that is certainly not what has happened. Although it is no consolation to the 14 people who are being held, or to their families, the number affected is very far from the number cited in some of the predictions. Some people have left the United Kingdom; they are all free to go. We know why the 14 cannot leave, but they are free to do so. I do not draw the comparisonsome dobetween those who are being detained here and the position of people detained by the United States in Cuba. It is very different indeed.

Douglas Hogg: I acknowledge the truth of what the hon. Gentleman says, but I am sure that he would want to acknowledge that some of these people have been held for a very long timein some cases for almost two years.

David Winnick: It is unfortunate. I cannot disagree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman about that. If those people were not guilty, they should have been acquitted. If they were guilty, however, I should of course much prefer them to have been convicted in a court of law, having enjoyed all the legal rights of defendants. My point is that if the security authorities tell the Home Secretary that certain people are a danger, the Home Secretary must make a decision. Some hon. Members would say that any information from the security authorities should be ignored. However, as I said when I intervened on my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, one can well imagine the reactionin the House, the country and the mediaif, having been warned that certain foreign nationals were a danger, he took no action to put them in custody, and it subsequently turned out that the same people were involved in a terrorist outrage. He would be harshly criticised in every possible way.
	In every case, the Home Secretary must decide whether to accept or ignore the advice of the security authorities about certain matters or people. That is part of the responsibility associated with that office.

Jeremy Corbyn: Is that not the whole point? The information is provided, in secret, by the security services, and is decided on, privately, by the Home Secretary. The individuals involved in this case have been in prison for two years, and are likely to be there for a lot longer. Neither they nor we know what they are charged with. They have not been convicted, and are not going to be. Is that acceptable in a modern democracy?

David Winnick: With great reluctance, I think that it is acceptable. That is why I supported the 2001 Act when it came before the House, and why I shall support the Government this evening. Critics of the Government, including my hon. Friend, should bear it in mind that there is no monopoly of concern about people being held outside the criminal justice system. I am no less concerned about that than anyone else, but I accept that there is a necessity to do what has been done. However, it goes without saying that I am unhappy with the situation, and wish that matters could be otherwise.

Richard Shepherd: The hon. Gentleman's concerns in these matters are well known, but he must recognise the other side of the coin, as set out by the hon. Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn). Some of us suspect that the information involved is faulty, but it is still possible to end up going to war on the basis of false information. That is why we want a degree of scrutiny and insight into decisions that affect our freedoms.

David Winnick: I do not disagree with the hon. Gentleman. To some extent, he may want to rerun the war that recently took place, but not for a moment do I doubt that his concerns are genuine, any more than I question the concerns expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn). It is part of the responsibility of Members of Parliament to be very much on guard. If we were complacent about such mattersif, in the absence of a Newton committee, there had been no concern or controversypeople would question the purpose of parliamentary democracy. The fact that this debate is taking place, and that concerns and anxieties existand I, who support the Government's position, to some extent share themshows that we are carrying out the duties of the House.

Robert Marshall-Andrews: One aspect of what my hon. Friend says concerns me, as it did when he intervened on the Home Secretary. He spoke of the Home Secretary's need to avoid possible stricture and criticism. However, if a serious crime takes place in the future, how can that need square with what happens in the normal practice of criminal law? The security services do not have to be involved. My knowledge of organised crime means that, tomorrow, I could give the Home Secretary the names of half a dozen people who I am convinced will commit serious crimes in the near future. Most senior police officers could do precisely the same. I could even tell my right hon. Friend the nature of the crimes likely to be committed, but he would tell me that he could do nothing because he had not a shred of evidence on which to act. When the crimes finally took place, as predicted, the Home Secretary would not be criticisedwhy should he be? Does not the same thing apply to terrorists?

David Winnick: No, it does not, as my hon. and learned Friend knows very well, because this is a unique situation involving terrorism. I have much respect for him, however much we disagree, but that was a surprising intervention, because he knows very well the difference between ordinary crime and the dangers of terrorism that face us.

Douglas Hogg: Further to the points made by the hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews), we shrank from using arbitrary detention in Northern Ireland, yet following the argument of the hon. Member for Walsall, North (David Winnick) we should presumably have wanted to impose arbitrary detention to prevent impending attacks.

David Winnick: As we know, detention in Northern Ireland was undertaken by the then Conservative Government. I believe that decision was wrong. Detention in Northern Ireland was a recruiting arm for the IRA, as I said at the time, but each situation is different and we cannot compare what is happening now with what happened in Northern Ireland, although clearly the right hon. and learned Gentleman believes that we can.
	I should have been happier had there been a process of judicial review, as I suggested to the Home Affairs Committee when we were considering the Act. However, I was narrowly defeated by four votes to three.
	I want to return to the remarks of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews). We are constantly told by the police and others that terrorism remains an acute danger for this country and that it is a question not of if but when a terrorist attack occurs. Does anyone in the Chamber disagree with that? As I said earlier, it is easy to imagine the reaction were the Home Secretary to ignore such advice. My right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham) rightly drew attention to what might happen to law-abiding members of Muslim communities who are no less opposed to violence and terrorism as we are. If a terrorist outrage occurred, some people would, unfortunately, want to incite hatred against members of particular communities.
	In a footnote to page 53 of its report, the Newton committee stated that broadcasts connected with international terrorist networks
	have confirmed that Britain has been singled out as a target
	for terrorism, and that an international terrorist leader had said that
	the killings of the British and Australians in the Bali explosions were carried out by zealous sons of Islam. Britain, France, Italy, Canada, Germany and Australia were all threatened with killings and bombings for their part in joining with America
	in the invasion of Afghanistannote: not in the invasion of Iraq.
	When the argument is advanced that we or the Government are anti-Muslim, why is there no mention of Kosovo? Why did the Government take action in Kosovo? The decision was controversial at the timealthough not as controversial as Iraq. It is a deliberate lie that we are anti-Muslim. There was a clear and simple reason for taking military action in Kosovo: to save the lives of Muslimsnot of Jews, Hindus, Christians or Sikhs. Nevertheless, those who peddle lies and use every possible justification for military action against western democracies, including the UK, like to portray us as anti-Muslim.
	There can never be a guarantee that any steps we take will stop terrorism, but the Government of the day have a duty to take the measures they believe necessary to protect the people of this country. I genuinely wish that the Actcertainly part 4could go. I certainly wish that there was no need to detain people in the circumstances in which the 14 are being held. I repeat that I am very unhappy about itI wish it were not sobut I accept that it is necessary and that this country faces an acute terrorist danger, and in those circumstances I am willing to support the Government, although with the reluctance and hesitation that I have expressed. Nevertheless, in the end, I believe that the Government are acting correctly.

Alan Beith: I had the privilege of serving as deputy to Lord Newton, as deputy chairman of the committee. I say privilege, but like my colleague in all this workthe right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir Brian Mawhinney)I recognise that it took a great deal of our time. I am grateful to the Conservative Front-Bench spokesman for paying tribute to the formidable amount of work that we did, and I pay a personal tribute to Lord Newton, whose leadership and patience in running the committee's affairs was one of the means that enabled us to get through so much work and to produce the report.
	I also pay tribute, as the right hon. Gentleman did, to the committee's small staff, who worked very hard indeed to enable us to achieve what we did. It was a pleasure to work with colleagues with a wide variety of political views from different political parties and, of course, one of nonea senior judge. We started from very different positions, but we reached unanimous conclusions on all the matters that appear in the report.
	The committee was in no doubt at all that the threat to this country from terrorism is very serious and has to be addressed by coherent legislation and effective Government action. That was not in dispute, and if it had been the material that we saw during our inquiries would have convinced us in any case about the seriousness of that threat.
	Much of today's debate has revolved around part 4the detention provisionsand I shall start with them. The provisions in part 4, which have been so controversial, have been used to detain people who are, in fact, free to leave tomorrow if they can find a country that will take them. Indeed, they can go to their own country if they do not fear persecution there. Two such individuals have already taken the option to leave. The suspicion must be that, if there were grounds to believe that they would engage in terrorism, they might well continue to do so if they left this country and went elsewhere. That is one of the reasons why the committee was fairly sceptical about the efficacy of the whole procedure. While we did not discuss this, I sometimes wonder whether, in choosing not to leave, some of them prefer to make some kind of political statement through that processalthough I would not willingly choose to use a method of making a political statement that involved remaining incarcerated in Belmarsh for an indefinite period.
	The committee was also struck by the fact that those provisions do not address United Kingdom citizens against whom there is comparable evidence that gives rise to identical suspicions. There may be at least half as many such people as the number of foreign citizens about whom suspicions arise. We heard evidence about the number. Indeed, there have been examples of the involvement of UK citizens, such as Richard Reid, the shoe bomber.
	The provisions require a derogation from the European convention on human rights that no other country has found necessary and that continuously undermines our promotion of human rights throughout the world, in the many countries where they are damaged and threatened. We therefore sought to find alternatives and to suggest things that, if taken together, could replace the part 4 provisions. They included alternative procedures that have been discussed today, such as the use of an investigating judge, who, as was pointed out, could provide a firewall by examining evidence and considering possibly exculpatory material without revealing to the defendant evidence that, if revealed, would destroy the ability of the authorities to crack down on terrorism.
	We suggested the use of aggravation provisions in relation to other offences and the use of intercept material in court proceedings. One should not exaggerate how much can be achieved by the use of such material because there are serious limitations to the amount that could be used, but that ought to be part of the armoury. I am unconvinced by the fact that the review has still not been completed. We were told that the review would be completed in a matter of months while we were conducting the inquiry in the latter part of last year, and that is also what we are being told now. It seems to be an endless review. We must complete the process by establishing procedures for using intercept material as evidence in court.
	Alongside those provisions, which are designed to enable prosecution to take place, we suggested a range of measures that, taken together, could enable stricter monitoring of those who are not in prison. Given that those provisions are clearly required for UK citizens about whom suspicions are entertained, and may well be required for people who are released from Guantanamo bay and reappear in this country with suspicions surrounding them, why cannot they be used in respect of a relatively small number of non-UK citizens?
	In that context, we welcome the significant increase in the resources available to the Security Service for surveillance. As the Home Secretary said, that provision was not dreamed up for today's debateor, indeed, for last weekend's newspapers, given that he seems, perhaps inadvisably, to have briefed them about itbut has been developing for some time, and rightly so. Indeed, the Intelligence and Security Committee stated in reports of 2001 and 2002 that the service needed more resources and that if it continued to transfer resources into counter-terrorism, as it had to, unacceptable risks would eventually be taken with various other threats to our security. I welcome the increased resources, although I probably would not be saying so much about them if the Home Secretary had not made them so public.
	We suggested a series of measures that, taken together, and perhaps including other aspects brought out by this debate and the six-month review, would provide a basis for getting rid of part 4. We have to do something about it in any case, because it expires in 2006. The committee felt that we certainly should not wait that long, and that the objective should be to replace it before then.
	We also argued for a focused, case management-based approach to the options for all those who are currently detained. Having looked at the Government response, I do not think that Ministers quite understood what we were suggesting. It would not be like the Special Immigration Appeals Commission process by which the validity of a person's detention is tested; it would involve Ministers considering whether individuals could be most suitably monitored back in the community, reconsidered for deportation, or dealt with in a series of other ways. We found no evidence that such a case-by-case review was taking place. Yes, there was a SIAC review into the validity of the detention, but not a review of the options available at any given stage.

Douglas Hogg: The right hon. Gentleman is making an important point that reinforces my earlier proposition. Once a power exists that enables the indefinite holding of a person, the Crown Prosecution Service or others will not strive strenuously to bring a proper prosecution.

Alan Beith: That is one of the dangers of the system. The SIAC mechanism is very thorough, although its standards of proof are significantly lower than those in a criminal trial. Those taking part apply it conscientiously to test the validity of the limited grounds on which people can be detained under the legislation. However, the committee thought it wrong to have no focused system for checking whether the most sensible option is being pursued in each case. That underlines the right hon. and learned Gentleman's point: where there is no pressure, no action is taken.

William Cash: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman is aware of the recent case in which SIAC made a decision on the ground that the provisions of the legislation were incompatible with articles 5 and 14 of the European Court rulings because they permitted the detention of suspected international terrorists in a way that discriminated against them on the ground of nationality. The Court of Appeal then reversed that decision, and it is now pending before the House of Lords. That illustrates the point, to which I constantly return, that it is not only a matter for SIACit can be adjudicated by the courts.

Alan Beith: That is true of the principles involved, but not of the individual cases, which are dealt with by the SIAC procedure with no such recourse to the courts. My point was not about testing validity, but about the Government's responsibility to decide whether a certain course of action was still the most sensible one in relation to the individual concerned.
	I do not want to spend all my time on part 4, because the Committee made many other recommendations covering a wide range of matters. I am concerned that the constructive tone of this afternoon's debate, mainly on part 4, is not reflected in the Government's response to many recommendations. The response was published only this morning, and I doubt whether many right hon. and hon. Members have had time to look at it in detail. If they did, they would find an amazingly long list of rejections of recommendations, many of which are about the way in which we monitor or scrutinise various processes that limit the freedom of the individual. Some of them have little or nothing to do with terrorism. The committee made a series of recommendations on those subjects. I shall give just one example, because it would take up too much of the House's time to go into all of them. It relates to something to which the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire referredinformation held by public bodies on individuals and the passing of information from one body to another on various grounds.
	In paragraph 22, the committee makes the following recommendation:
	In our view, internal authorisation by a senior person would be adequate for the disclosure of addresses or phone numbers in terrorism cases.
	In paragraph 23, we go on to say:
	While we accept that it may well be that the same regime could be justified for other types of serious crime, we would argue that prior judicial approval should be required in any case involving less serious crimes or the disclosure of more sensitive information. Parliament should be given the opportunity to decide what level of authorisation should be required, depending on the seriousness of the crime and the sensitivity of the information being disclosed.
	We are talking about one Government Department passing information to another on a matter that has nothing at all to do with terrorismperhaps a much less serious crimeand that ought to be subject to an authorisation procedure. We believe that prior judicial authorisation is appropriate for sensitive information relating to allegations of less serious crimes.
	The Government's response includes phrases on which hon. Members should reflect with care. In paragraph 24 of their response they say:
	The supply of information about an individual by one public authority to another cannot, in the Government's view, realistically be regarded as being as intrusive as, for example, a search of that individual's home.
	I am not sure that everybody would agree. In paragraph 25, the Government go on to say:
	Given these considerations, and the numerous occasions where public sector data sharing of this sort, and joined up administration, will be in the public interest in promoting legitimate aims, the Government cannot accept the Review's proposal of prior judicial control of information disclosure.
	In other words, the Government support joined-up government and want to deliver on all sorts of targets, so one Department should be able to give any other Department without any prior disclosure anything that it has on any individual. The reason adduced is not the imminent danger of terrorism but joined-up government and other legitimate aims. Hidden in the small print of the Government response are some alarming approaches to issues that have always, both in this House and the Lords, been regarded as matters deserving the most serious consideration. That is just one example of a series of matters that do not relate primarily to terrorismsometimes they do not relate to terrorism at allon which the Newton committee made recommendations for procedures or protections, only for the Government to reject our proposals outright. I hope that the constructive spirit that the Home Secretary brought to the earlier part of the debate will now be applied to some aspects of the Government response.
	The last general subject that I want to refer to is the parliamentary process under which the legislation was introduced. After all, that is why the committee came into existence. Questions are sometimes asked at our meetings about why our terms were drafted in a particular way, and why we received a particular remit. It appears to be a back-of-the-envelope job late at night in the House of Lords when, yet again, part of the legislation was rushed through and subjected to a challenge. A concession had to be made, so it was agreed that a committee of senior Privy Councillors would review the legislation and produce a report that had to be debated. If it was not debated, they could specify that the legislation, or parts of it, should lapse. We are now engaged in that process. Indeed, if the debate had not taken place, the Act would lapse. That would depend not on the result of a vote but simply on whether the debate took place. However, the reason for the back-of-an-envelope arrangement at dead of night was the genuine anxiety about rushing through legislation that covered a wide range of matters, was not part of a coherent body of anti-terrorist law and extended into many other areas.
	One of the committee's recommendations is that the Government should revert to their declared policy of having a coherent body of anti-terrorist law. That assumption lay behind the Terrorism Act 2000; indeed, it was explicitly stated. I recognise that the Government believed that they had to act quickly after 11 September, but they should revert to the previous principle. The committee believes that that should happen, especially as it has been extensively acknowledged in the debate that the situation is not temporary and that the legislation is therefore unlikely to be temporary. Its permanence is mentioned on the last page of the Government's response to the Newton committee's report.
	I have said that the Act covers many subjects that go far beyond terrorism. The right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire referred to the Home Office practice of clearing the shelves of anything that they did not get through in previous legislation by sticking it into the next relevant measure. That applies especially if there is an opportunity of getting legislation through quickly and with less trouble than normal procedures allow. I am convinced that that happened in the case that we are considering. Indeed, the Act includes items that were explicitly withdrawn or rejected previously.
	One argument that is adduced for such action is that terrorists are criminals, that they commit other crimes, and that the whole Act is therefore terrorist legislation. That was hard to sustain when it became clear to us that the main use of British Transport police powers was dealing with football hooliganism, and the main use of some of the information powers was tackling sexual offences, especially paedophiles. Those are legitimate reasons for legislation but not for justification on the basis that one is dealing with the threat from terrorism. If we argue that all crime can be tied up with terrorism, all criminal justice measures should be emergency legislation, rushed through both Houses of Parliament in as little time as possible because somebody might commit a crime before the process is completed.
	The Newton committee took the issue seriously and paragraph 333 of the report states:
	Some of these provisions appear to have been included in counter-terrorist legislation in order to take advantage of its accelerated passage and limited scrutiny, in order to avoid the difficulties which had previously been experienced in securing Parliamentary approval. This inappropriate fast-tracking undermines the consensus which is desirable to allow legislation to be enacted rapidly in emergencies.
	When the Government introduced the measure, they depended on the wide acceptance that, in an emergency, with a serious threat to the country, one sometimes has to react quickly and push through legislation quickly. However, they relied on that to include far wider matters in the Act. The committee suggested that it would be appropriate to revisit many of them in mainstream legislation. The Home Secretary's argument and the Government response are unconvincing.
	The Home Secretary was a little more open and honest than the document. He referred to his difficulties in getting his Bills into the parliamentary timetable. However, the official response states:
	The Government does not believe that it would be an appropriate use of Parliamentary time to re-legislate for provisions that Parliament has already passed.
	You could have fooled me, because the Home Office appears to do that regularly. Every year, a new criminal justice Bill and a new anti-terrorism Bill are introduced. The idea that one should not revert to subjects on which one has already legislated is not part of Home Office practice.

Douglas Hogg: There may be another reason for the Home Secretary's belief that it is not necessary to revisit legislation: the Henry VIII provision of section 124. Under that section, the right hon. Gentleman can amend any provision.

Alan Beith: Indeed, that is one of the few powers that the Committee said ought to be repealed without qualification. The report stated:
	The powers of amendment . . . are particularly unwelcome in emergency legislation of this kind, and they should be repealed.
	The House should know the Government's response to that. It states:
	Disagree. The Government believes that this power allows the Government to react quickly to changing circumstances that are a feature of many of the areas covered in the Act.
	That is not just terrorism, because the 2001 Act covers a wide variety of offences. The response goes on to say:
	It is correct that terrorism legislation is placed on a permanent footing and that powers contained within it allow us to respond flexibly to any changes in threat.
	Responding flexibly does not mean being able to amend legislation by statutory instrument on matters of fundamental principle.

Douglas Hogg: By negative procedure, too.

Alan Beith: I must say that the Government response asserts that they could amend legislation only by the affirmative procedure. From memory, I am not sure whether we have ever received a convincing answer to that point. My reading of the statute is that legislation can be amended by negative instrument, and I am reassured to know that the right hon. and learned Gentleman also takes that view.

Richard Shepherd: The point is enormously important. The Civil Contingencies Bill contains a similar provision by which subordinate legislation may amend any primary legislation on the statute book. The trend is incredible and this is where it started.

Alan Beith: The most effective challenge to such provisions will be mounted not at this end but at the other end of the building. A challenge was mounted when the legislation was considered. The creation of the Newton committee was in part a response to this. Many Lords felt that the legislation was wider than it needed to be to deal with the terrorist threat and used attenuated parliamentary procedures inappropriately to push through provisions that, on reflection, would not be accepted by many Members in either House.
	As I said earlier, a consensus has formed on the Home Secretary's remarks about reviewing during the next six months provisions to replace part 4 of the 2001 Act. I welcome that decision, and I take him at his word that he is prepared to engage in that process and build on the Newton committee's recommendation. Simply because others have not had the opportunity to do so, I have concentrated on the area about which I feel more discontented by the Home Secretary's response.
	Many of the recommendations go far beyond terrorism, and I therefore put in a very strong plea for the extension of the spirit of consensus that the Home Secretary sought to include in part 4 of the 2001 Act into areas where the Government's initial response has been to suggest that nothing more needs to be done and that they will not give up powers that they have managed to introduce by this rapid process.

Kevin McNamara: It is fitting to reflect for one moment that today marks the 70th anniversary of the founding of the National Council for Civil Liberties; there is a certain irony in our debating this matter and remembering the anniversary of that important non-governmental body.
	The Home Secretary is right to highlight the enormous responsibility that he bears to protect the public from the threat of terrorism and the actions of terrorists. It is, however, a responsibility that we all share. To shirk it and bury our heads in the sand would be playing with lives, which none of us wants. The criticisms of the Home Secretary are not about the urgency of the situation or the gravity of the threat, but about whether the methods adopted are proportionate, appropriate and capable of achieving the ends that we all desire or whether they are counter-productive.
	On Newsnight yesterday, the Home Secretary discussed the intrusion of that responsibility into his Christmas holiday. I can sympathise; had he been of another faith, I am sure that his burden would have been just as great over December. If he does not mind my saying thisI am sure that he would not if he were herehe is rather like a wicket keeper who complains that everyone keeps throwing the ball at him. I want to consider the responsibilities of the whole team, and our response to it.
	On 11 September 2001, after the collapse of the twin towers, when planes were still missing, buildings were being evacuated and no one knew who or what would next be targeted, I had just returned from the United Nations world conference on racism, held in Durban, South Africa. What is the relevance of that to this debate? I reflected then how that country had changed, in such a short time, from being a potential target for international terrorism to one that sought to provide a model for future conflict resolution. It had gone from being part of the problem, on a world scale, to providing part of the solution.
	One of the principal achievements of the Durban conference was to commit world leaders to a project in which each country would draw up its own national action plan against racism. Like other participating states, the UK Government agreed to draw up such a plan in co-operation with non-governmental organisations and minority ethnic groups. Surely in that way we could set an example to the world. It is relevant in this debate to ask what happened to that plan.
	I have asked questions in the House about progress on the maintenance and achievement of the national plan, and I have been told, two years later, that it is in progress. When I talked to the Northern Ireland Council for Ethnic Minorities about its efforts to achieve action to address the wave of racist attacks that have left members of minority groups in south Belfast living in fear of their lives, I was told that it has been informed that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary plans to drop his commitment to the national plan. That has enormous relevance. I wonder what representatives of the Muslim community in Britain will make of that decision, especially when they feel that their co-religionists are demonised in the war against terror and that their needs are not being addressed.
	My right hon. Friend says that we should not adopt a knee-jerk opposition to anti-terrorist legislation, and that in the era of the suicide bomber everything has changed. He is correct to argue that we should study and understand, but I am not sure that everything has changed. It is not as though the IRA, the UVF or the UDA were ever gentleman terrorists or Northern Ireland was a place where terrorists played by the rules.
	There are lessons to be learned from Northern Ireland. Those who wish to demonstrate that they are tough on terrorism, but cannot focus on or address the causes of terrorism, are inevitably forced to rely on the supposedly inexplicable nature of the problem or the psychopathic nature of its perpetrators. We had indications of that from my right hon. Friend today. If that is the case, why does the determination to be a suicide bomber find resonance among young people? Why do they feel that legitimate grievances have not been examined and that no attempts have been made to rectify them? Those young people have not all been brainwashed. They have arrived at conclusions because of their experiences. Why was there so much rejoicingI say that with great sadness and the same horror that every other right hon. and hon. Member must feelin slums and ghettos throughout the world at what happened to the twin towers? That was an appalling and shocking response. Why did it happen?
	Unlike the Northern Ireland conflict, in which the UK had a primary responsibility, the problem we face today is global and requires a global solution. Whatever we do can only be part of that solution. However, another lesson from Northern Ireland is that international standards provide a framework for the protection of democracy and the best guarantee for defence of the rule of law. In Northern Ireland, successive Governments changed the rules and broke the law. When internment without trial failed, we introduced no-jury courts, relaxed the rules of evidence, relaxed the rules that prevented the use of confessions extracted under duress and allowed the use of informer and accomplice evidence.
	What did that achieve? Certainly, it put some people behind bars, but what really happened was that the law became the enemy. Young people flocked to join the terrorist groups. Internment and Bloody Sunday were both the breaking of accepted rules. Indeed, on Bloody Sunday, in flat contradiction of a decision of the Supreme Court of Northern Ireland, the British Army was acting illegally. What also happened was that the prisoners, the men behind the wire of whatever community, and not the policemen, were the heroes. That surely is both unacceptable to us and something from which we should learn.

David Winnick: Those mistakes were undoubtedly made in Northern Ireland, but does my hon. Friend accept another lesson, which is that the House of Commons did not give in to terror and that, despite all the differences over how we should deal with the situation in Northern Ireland, weGovernment and Oppositionwere absolutely determined that the IRA would not succeed in attaining its objective? Thirty years later, the IRA was defeatednot militarily, but politically, because it could not achieve what it set out to do. Its objective was not reform and change in Northern Ireland, which were already taking place when it was formed, but a united Ireland, to be achieved through terror. The IRA never succeeded. We stood firm, and we, including my hon. Friend, were absolutely right.

Kevin McNamara: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that backhanded compliment.
	My point, which is important, is that until we wrestled with the problems of reform in Northern Ireland, until we saw that people there had an unaddressed grievance, we would not succeed.
	At the time of internment without trial, there was a song in Northern Ireland with the chorus Armoured cars and tanks and guns. The song included the words:
	Being Irish means they're guilty
	So we're guilty one and all.
	Racial profiling of the Irish in Britain made them a suspect community. Not until there was more finesse in policing, and draconian treatment of the Irish community in this country was seen to be counterproductive, did we start to see an improvement. Indeed, terrorism and incidents of terrorism were at their height when internment was in operation in Northern Ireland. It started to diminish only when the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, now my right hon. and noble Friend Lord Merlyn-Rees, started to end internment without trial.

Patrick Mercer: Another part of the song that the hon. Gentleman quoted is:
	England's name again is sullied
	In the eyes of honest men.
	Does not that point to a lack of objectivity in that particular republican paean?

Kevin McNamara: Not for a member of the Irish community living in west Belfast, South Armagh, the Bogside, parts of north London or Birmingham. For them, England's action was sullied. One of the problems that we have hadindeed, that we have had with regard to human rights throughout the worldis answering questions about internment in Northern Ireland.

Jeremy Corbyn: To take things slightly further forward, after the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1974 was introduced, about 10,000 people were arrested. Few were charged and hardly any were convicted, but as far as I am aware they were all Irish people, so the Act had a huge effect on the Irish community. I am sure that my hon. Friend has read the briefing that Liberty sent out for the debate. It makes the point that, small though the numbers might be, all those currently held in Belmarsh are Muslims. Exactly the same arguments are going on throughout the Muslim community as those that went on throughout the Irish community 25 years ago.

Kevin McNamara: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. I was about to make a comparison with
	Being Irish means they're guilty,
	because many people in the Muslim community now think, Being Muslims means we're guilty, so we're guilty one and all.
	Relaxing the rules, as we did, on evidence and on charging did not defeat terrorism, but it did help to create the Birmingham Six, the Guildford Four and a whole series of monstrous miscarriages of justice. As that happened, the actual victims of terrorism were forgotten. How did we break the law? On Bloody Sunday, the Government permitted the unlawful use of lethal force and killed 13 civil rights protestors. In Gibraltar, the Government permitted extrajudicial assassination that was countenanced at the highest level and the SAS gunned down three IRA volunteers in cold blood, for which we were condemned by the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. The British Government encouraged the creation of disinformation and dirty tricks units, allowed loyalist groups to be armed, and ran agents who committed murder with impunity. What did that achieve? Nothing; it prolonged the war and delayed the peace. When one teaches disrespect for human rights, changes the rules and breaks the law, where does it end? It ends in condoning terror, and in the murder of people such as Pat Finucane and Rosemary Nelson. My conclusions might be unacceptable to the Government, but we might have a bit more faith if they published the Cory report and established the inquiries that the Prime Minister promisedI strongly suspect that we will not have the separate public inquiries.
	When the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill was first presented to Parliament, we were acutely aware of the risks of that sort of legislation. That is why the oversight regime is so important. The provisions of the Act must be renewed each year and it has a sunset clause that does not permit renewal beyond 2006. A special committee of Privy Councillorswe are indebted to all the Privy Councillor members of the committee who have spoken todaywas charged with reviewing it.
	The Home Secretary can take comfort in many of the positive things that have been said about his attitude to some of the cases. However, he should listen carefully to the advice he has been given, especially because he asked for that advice from Lord Newton and the Privy Counsellor Review Committee, Lord Carlile and the Joint Committee on Human Rights. I am pleased that there has not been a pre-emptory rejection of the Privy Counsellor Review Committee report, as happened in December, and that we have received some sort of reply. I am pleased that the Government have accepted the Joint Committee's recommendation that they should consider matters within a six-month period, particularly as it arose due to an amendment to the report that I suggested. The Joint Committee was far kinder when deciding the amount of time to allowI would have given the Government only 28 daysbut nevertheless the time period came about from the germ of my idea, which arose because experience shows that Governments suddenly decide to review emergency legislation two or three months before they must renew it. Allowing a specific six-month period in which they may review the legislation and come up with ideas and positive alternatives is thus important.
	Derogation from the European convention on human rights and the use of powers to detain indefinitely has given rise to almost universal concern. I am gravely concerned about the position of 14 non-British nationals who are being held indefinitely in high-security prisons. Given the length of time for which they have been there, I believe that there may be a case for arguing that there could be a violation under article 3 of the convention because the detainees, who have no prospect of release, are the victims of a cruel or unusual treatment. The Government must remember that there can be no derogation from article 3.
	I would also like to draw the House's attention to the fact that, when some of the cases were at SIAC, one of the witnesses giving evidence and who was hidden from the rest of the court, had dragged out of them the information that some of the evidence given in the cases may wellwe cannot say positivelyhave been obtained by people interrogated abroad, who have been subject to torture and inhuman and degrading treatment. Such evidence would never be allowed in a British court, but it has been used as part of the intelligence summaries to keep people detained. The problem is that evidence obtained under torture has always been suspect. Those who are tortured or subjected to harsh and cruel procedures are human beings like the rest of us. Which of us here would not necessarily agree with an inquisitor subjecting us to torture, whether of a psychological or physical kind? However, it has been used to keep people behind bars. It is my considered view that part 4, providing for indefinite detention, is unacceptable and should not be renewed.
	Several weeks ago, I was approached by the legal representatives of nine men currently held in Belmarsh, conveying to me a request from them that I should undertake a prison visit prior to today's debate to hear at first hand their views on the legality and the conditions of detention under which they are being held. I am awareand I was aware when I made the applicationthat a number of individuals and agencies have undertaken visits in pursuance of their statutory obligations, but this was to be the first and only proposed visit sought by a Member of Parliament in response to a request from the prisoners themselves. I very much regret, therefore, that last week I received a letter from the Prison Service declining my request for assistance in arranging such a visit. No alternative proposals were made.
	I am familiar with security restrictions and difficulties posed by prison visits of a political nature. When Northern Ireland was beset by terrorist violence, I was able to visit both loyalist and republican prisoners in high-security wings without any obstacles being put in my way by the Prison Service in either Northern Ireland or the rest of the United Kingdom. That was the case under both Conservative and Labour Administrations. As a member of the Legal Affairs and Human Rights Committee of the Council of Europe, I was appointed rapporteur on the imprisonment of the detainees at Guantanamo bay. In June last year, the Parliamentary Assembly overwhelmingly endorsed my report finding their imprisonment to be unlawful.
	I am concerned about unlawful detentionwhether it is in a United States naval base in Cuba or in Belmarsh prison. Whatever the fig leaf provided by SIACit is a diminishing onethat justifies holding people at Belmarsh, the general principle is the same. The Foreign Secretary has rightly condemned what has happened elsewhere: people should either be put on trial or returned to the United Kingdom. We do not accept the same principle for people in Belmarsh. There is a degree of hypocrisy about that that I find particularly unacceptable.
	We have been asked about the alternatives. Other speakers in the debate have given a range of alternatives, so I shall not rehearse the whole package again. However, one thing is certain. Whether we hold 20 men or one man in the conditions in Belmarsh and insist on having the derogation, we are lowering standards in our country, lessening our position in the world and will be unable to argue actively and promptly for human rights to be observed in other countries. More importantly, we are dealing unfairly and cruelly with the men who, at present, are behind the wire.

Douglas Hogg: I am one of those who opposed the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 when it was being debated on Second Reading. Having read the reports of the noble Lord Newton and the Joint Committee on Human Rights, I am bound to say that my conclusions from that time have been strongly reinforced.
	Inevitably, this debate has quite rightly focused primarily on part 4 of the 2001 Act, and I shall refer to that in a moment. However, I shall begin by making two general observations. The first goes to the undesirability of emergency legislation, a point that the Newton report brought out very forcefully. There are a number of reasons for that, but the first is that because emergency legislation is rushed through, inevitably much of it is never scrutinised. We therefore make legislation that could be in place for a considerable time, but which has not been subject to parliamentary processes. My second reason, which is slightly different, is that the circumstances in which emergency legislation is pushed throughoften circumstances of distress, high passion and dramareduce the willingness of Members of Parliament properly to scrutinise it.
	I am therefore very hostile indeed to emergency legislation. As my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir Brian Mawhinney) and the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) have stressed, the 2001 Act was also used as a vehicle for passing many other pieces of legislation that were sitting in the back cupboard of the Home Office. The Government wished to put those in place, and used this Act as a means of doing so. That was a lamentable abuse. I am very much against emergency legislation in general, and the way in which emergency legislation was used in this instance in particular.
	My second general observation relates to the security services. We need to be very alert to the limitations and shortcomings of the security services. I speak as one who dealt with them for some seven years. When I was at the Foreign Office as Minister of State, one of my responsibilities, subject to the then Foreign Secretary, was to handle relations with the security services and GCHQ. In a more limited way, I had dealings with the security services when I was Under-Secretary at the Home Office, as I was responsible for the legislation on terrorism then going through the House.
	I have come to some pretty clear views on the security services. I do not wish to be in any way disobliging to them, but we have to face some facts. First, inevitably, much of what they tell Ministers is uncertain, imprecise and not capable of any external verification. That is inherent in the nature of their work. Secondly, they operate in the shadows, so they are not subject to the public scrutiny to which other services are subject. For example, we would be astonished if the police service were allowed to prepare its briefs and give advice in the way in which the security services do. As it is, the police service has to produce its output to the courts, and the press, juries and lawyers can have a go at it, so its act is sharpened up as a consequence. However, the security services have none of those pressures. They just give private advice, fairly certain that no one will scrutinise carefully what they are doing, and that no one will embarrass them. Is itI ask rhetoricallytherefore surprising that they become rather set in their ways and complacent, always guard their backs and are perhaps not as robust in the quality of their work as they should be?
	Moreover, the security services get things fundamentally wrong. I was one of those who voted against the war in Iraq, and one reasonalthough not the only onewas my absolute certainty that if the security services had advised the Government that Saddam Hussein was a serious risk to world peace, they were wrong. As it appears, I rather doubt that they did give that advice, but if they did, they were wrong. Consequently, I regard the work and activities of the security services as a pretty fragile foundation on which to deprive other people of their liberty. That is an important starting point for the House.
	The Newton report, reinforced by the Joint Committee, has recommended that part 4 of the Act be replaced by permanent legislation with all possible speed. I agree with that view, and I hope that it will be replaced soon with legislation that does not involve a derogation from human rights legislation, does not rely on immigration law, and does not make a distinction between persons depending on their nationality or place of residence.
	My opposition to part 4 is one of principle. When the legislation was being debated, I went to the House on Second Reading to ask the Houseand, indeed, myselfabout the circumstances in which a person could be detained indefinitely. That is all set out in section 21 of the Act. Such detentions do not follow a conviction or even a finding of wrongdoing or an intent to do wrong. All that has to be satisfied is section 21, which provides merely that the Secretary of State should have reasonable grounds to believe that a person constitutes a threat, and suspect that the person is a terrorist or is associated with terrorism. Having reasonable grounds to believe or suspect such a thing is wholly different from a finding that a person has indulged in wrongdoing. I find it very difficult to accept that a person can be detained for a very long period of time on such a fragile foundation.

William Cash: My right hon. and learned Friend is putting forward his argument very clearly, but there is a problem. Lord Hoffmann, who is by no means backward in the matter of human rightsindeed, he is one of the foremost proponents of themmade it quite clear in the case of Rehman only about a year ago that, in the context of the issues that we are now discussing, the courts had to have regard for the decisions taken by the Home Secretary on reasonable grounds. Would my right hon. and learned Friend like to ponder that decision, or does he simply disagree with it?

Douglas Hogg: I simply disagree with it. I do not think that anyone should be detained for a long period of time unless there is a positive finding of fact made by some judicial or quasi-judicial body to the effect that the person has either infringed the law or embarked on some other relevant wrongdoing. The fact that the Secretary of State may have reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that that is the case does not strike me as a good enough reason to detain the person.

Beverley Hughes: The right hon. and learned Gentleman brings us to an essential point. Given his strong feelings about not detaining a person in any circumstances if they have not been convicted of an offence in open court and subject to our usual criminal justice processes, what does he think should happen to individuals about whom the intelligence evidence is more than highly suggestive that they are planning acts of terrorism against citizens of this country? What is his solution to that dilemma?

Douglas Hogg: I shall come to that. My view coincides largely with what Lord Newton has said. To say that we should sentence someone to a long period of imprisonment because of intelligence information that is highly suggestive seems to infringe almost every principle for which I have ever stood, and I am not going to start infringing them now.
	The right of appeal in the Act provides that SIAC has the ability to determine whether there are reasonable grounds for the Secretary of State to come to the suspicion or belief that he harbours on the matter. There is no revisiting of the underlying facts. The question and primary test is whether there were reasonable grounds for belief or suspicion, not whether the underlying facts were right or the individual has been guilty of wrongdoing.
	What does SIAC see? It sees relatively little. It sees anyway only what the Secretary of State wants it to see. That was the point made by the hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews), and it is entirely right. What does a detainee see? Very often, they see almost nothing. If one looks carefully at the report, one will see that the closed evidence is often the majority evidence. The closed evidence is disclosed to the special advocate, and from the moment the special advocate gets to closed material, he has no further communication with the detainee or the detainee's legal representatives. That is not a form of appeal that I recognise. It seems thoroughly bad.
	My conclusion on part 4 thus far is that it is deeply offensive. The right of a power of detention is fatally flawed because it does not reflect any independent assessment of wrongdoingfar less a convictionand in any event, there is a wholly futile appeal process.
	My anxieties are reinforced when I read paragraph 200 of the Newton report on page 55, where it is said:
	Given the novel and contentious nature of these powers we believe that there should be a continuous proactive effort to manage the individual cases of the suspects with a view to finding alternative ways of dealing with them.
	That is wholly right. What is the conclusion? The committee states:
	We were, therefore, surprised to learn that the authorities
	they are the people for whom the Home Secretary is responsible
	 . . . have given no thought to what change in circumstances might lead them to conclude that an individual should be released or dealt with differently.
	In other words, once the authorities have the detainee in the bag, they leave him there and pay no more attention to his case. Who is responsible for those people in those authorities? The answer is: the Minister now sitting on the Front Bench, and her boss.

Vera Baird: It cannot be right that no more attention is paid to detainees once they are in detention, because we have learned this afternoon that two have been prosecuted on criminal charges and that, as I understand it, the evidence for that was found by the authorities after they had been detained. So they are not completely abandoned.

Douglas Hogg: The detainees are kept in the bag, and I have no doubt that some prosecution authorities review their cases, but they are different from the Home Office authorities. The Home Office is quite happy to leave them in the bag. That is what Lord Newton and his committee say. I regard that as a scandal, as I am sure, to be fair, does the hon. and learned Lady.

William Cash: I am sorry to trouble my right hon. and learned Friend a second time.

Douglas Hogg: My hon. Friend never troubles me.

William Cash: I am glad to hear it; I will put my question a bit more sharply. I was going to be a little more temperate. He has just said that there would be no review when the person was in the bag and left there indefinitely. How does he equate that with section 26 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, which specifically provides that
	The Special Immigration Appeals Commission must hold a first review of each certificate issued under section 21 as soon as is reasonably practicable after the expiry of the period of six months beginning with the date on which the certificate is issued?
	In addition, there is provision for a repeat.

Douglas Hogg: That is on the basis of information supplied by Home Office officials, in respect of whom Lord Newton made the precise criticisms to which I have drawn my hon. Friend's attention. That is one reason why the process is so perverseand no doubt one reason why Lord Newton was so concerned about it.

Vera Baird: At each of the reviews, the detainee is entitled to be represented. I have seen and know well many of the representatives who feature in appeals on behalf of such detainees. I assure the right hon. and learned Gentleman that it would be unbelievable if they were not putting forward every change of circumstance so that SIAC could take it into account. Admittedly, it will judge that against the intelligence, but he is quite wrong to call such a form of appeal futile.

Douglas Hogg: The hon. and learned Lady must face up to two points. First, Lord Newton's committee and all the Privy Councillors unanimously concluded that there was a failure on the part of the Home Office properly to discharge its duties in this regard. That is set out clearly in paragraph 200, and I commend it to her. Secondly and quite differently, as regards the appeal, she will find it comprehensively described at paragraph 176 of the report. In particular, serious criticism should be directed at the fact that much of the evidence is closed evidence of which the detainee will be wholly ignorant. If she finds that a satisfactory process, I do not, and to be fair to her, I doubt whether she does either.
	On one further point before I look to the future, I have a strong suspicion that the existence of part 4 powers, so that the person is in the bag, means that not very serious attention is given to whether that person can be prosecuted for substantive offences. Indeed, I suspect strongly that the fact that there are part 4 powers acts as a powerful disincentive to the Crown Prosecution Service and others when they come to consider whether or not they wish to prosecute, having regard to the uncertainties involved.

Robert Marshall-Andrews: May I ask the corollary of the question that has just been put to the right hon. and learned Gentleman? Given that there are 17 people against whom it is perceived that there is so much evidence that it warrants their detention without trial over two years, is it not extraordinary and singular that only two of them have been prosecuted during that period?

Douglas Hogg: Yes, it is. I think that that makes the point that I have tried to make: once somebody is in the bag, why bother any further? It is a strong supporting piece of evidence to the effect that these part 4 powers are having a perverse effect and are themselves preventing prosecutions for substantive offences.
	I want to look forward a little. I hope very much that there will be an implementation of the broad Newton recommendations. As a general proposition, I want these emergency provisions to be replaced by permanent legislation. I want terrorist offences for the most part to be dealt with in the mainstream of criminal law. I want to ensure that there is no further derogation from the human rights legislation, and, furthermore, that no distinction is made between defendants on the grounds of nationality or place of residence. The legislation should deal with terrorism qua terrorism and should not rely on the immigration laws.
	Next, I believe that detention should only follow conviction for a substantive offence. Under no circumstances should long-term detention or any significant period of detention follow security-led information. I accept that there may well have to be changes to the law as to the admissibility of evidencethe points made about intercepts seemed entirely right. The practice may also have to change. The points about the juge d'instruction made in the Newton committee report are perfectly sensible, and we could no doubt expand on the use of special advocates. I further accept that there may be a residue of cases in which it is not possible to prosecute but there is some degree of risk. The House must wrestle with that.
	I welcome the proposals in the Newton report that there may be restrictions falling short of detention that can properly be imposed: tagging, restrictions on banking transactions, surveillance and so on. I want to make two points, however. If those are to be invoked, it should be after a judicial or quasi-judicial process on the basis of statutory criteria that must be proved to the satisfaction of the tribunal. In those circumstances, I would be prepared to accept further restrictions, albeit falling short of detention. At the end of the day, I do not think that there are any circumstances in which I would support a policy that results effectively in internment without proper criminal process and above all without a proper conviction or judicial hearing.
	Finally, let me say something about the Henry VIII clause, section 124. The Newton committee was rightly critical of it, because the Home Secretary is giving himself powers to amend both the Act and any pre-existing legislation to the extent that he thinks necessary or expedient. Moreover, he can do so by means of the negative procedure, which is subject to annulment. In other words, we have given the Home Secretary power to amend any piece of legislation that he sees fit to amend, and he can do it without primary legislationon the back of a short debate upstairs, if such a debate is secured. That is simply not worthy of this place.

Andrew Dismore: This debate reminds me of last week's television series about Dunkirk. We lost that campaign because our generals had prepared for the previous war rather than the one that they were there to fight. They did not know our enemies: they did not know how ruthless they were, or what techniques they would use. I think that today, especially in the context of some of the comparisons with IRA terrorism, we too run the risk of fighting the last rather than the current war. We should be considering the nature of al-Qaeda, its aims and how it operates. We should bear in mind how different all that is from everything that we have experienced before in our fight against terrorism, whether it involves the IRA or other more recently identified terrorist organisations.
	Al-Qaeda's world view is completely different from ours. It is not about dealing with developing world issues, or about the middle east; it is about overthrowing our way of life completely. I have read al-Qaeda's manifestoI do not know how many other Members have; it was sent to me by a journalistand it is clear that there is no room for compromise. These people's objective is to turn our country, the United States and the western world as a whole into a Taliban-style dictatorship, a theocracy under Islam. We cannot compromise or negotiate with them. Theirs is not like IRA terrorism, which had a political objective.
	Moreover, members of al-Qaeda operate very differently from the IRA. They aim at soft targets, not high-profile targets. Their aim is to cause the maximum number of civilian casualties, as we saw on 11 September, and they are careless of their own lives: they go out deliberately to kill themselves by means of suicide bombing.

Gregory Campbell: I do not think a distinction should be drawn between the terrorism manifested by al-Qaeda and that of, for example, the IRA. Surely we should all expose terrorism, wherever it may originatebe it the soft terrorism that we see closer to home or the more ruthless, hard, rooted terrorism that we see internationally. We should expose and oppose all of it, to ensure that it is brought to an end.

Andrew Dismore: I hope the hon. Gentleman does not think that I am soft on IRA terrorismfar from it. My point is that we cannot fight old wars. We are fighting a new war against al-Qaeda, a different organisation with different aims over which we cannot compromise or negotiate, using entirely different techniques. If we do not recognise that, we have no prospect of winning this war.
	I think that the report's recommendation on tagging is somewhat naive, and also rather dangerous. Part of the problem is that we do not know the identities of those in detention, save one who has allowed himself to be named: Abu Qatada. If anyone thinks that Abu Qatada could have been tagged and had his finances controlled in such a way, they have another think coming. Let us not forget that even though he was under surveillance, when the new law was introduced he managed to give the security services the slip, and went on the run for nine months before he was tracked down. So the idea that he would somehow be tagged or brought to a police station, or confined to using only approved bank accounts, is complete nonsense.
	There is a risk associated with this development. I fully accept the Home Secretary's wordindeed, I have had it independently confirmed elsewherethat an extremely high threshold is applied before anybody is put into detention. But if there were the alternative further down the chain of tagging or reporting to a police station, the inevitable temptation would be to use that power more widely. In effect, that would lead to a greater infringement of the civil liberties of a wider group of people for whom detention may not be appropriate, but whom we would like to keep under surveillance through a cheaper method. That would be wrong. If certain people are so dangerous to our society that action needs to be taken, detention is the appropriate course. We should not try to widen the net, which could happen if we have these wider powers.
	Nor is there any need to extend the powers beyond the exemption relating to al-Qaeda. The police would seem to agree with that view. A senior police officer told me that they have no desire, should the law be extended, for what they call a Casablanca moment, in order to round up the usual suspects. They are quite satisfied with the current position.
	The report contains a lot of common sense about intercepts, but we must recognise that they are not a panacea in themselves. They have, however, certainly helped in other jurisdictions. From what I have read about the case of Abu Qatada, for example, if intercepts had been admissible evidence he could well have been charged. But we must also recognise that simply having intercepts as admissible evidence is not the end of the story. The police would still have to prove their contextwho was speaking to whomwhich can often be extremely difficult evidentially. One way to do so might be to have a rebuttable presumption: a presumption, rebuttable by the suspect, that the person on the phone line is the owner or subscriber; otherwise, it could be extremely difficult to make use of the full evidential effect of that intercept.
	We must also ask whether this law is going to be retrospective. I know that the House is very reluctant to consider retrospective legislation, but if we are contemplating allowing intercepts to be used as evidence, there is a lot to be said for allowing the law to be retrospective, so that it can be used on previously obtained intercept evidence. That could well provide us with the evidence that we need to prosecute those who are currently detained in Belmarsh. The intercept evidence on which they are probably detained could then be used for a criminal prosecution against them.

Vera Baird: I share my hon. Friend's view, but there is no difficulty in this regard. If the law on admissibility were changed, everything in existence could be admitted from then on. Indeed, I hope that that happens.

Andrew Dismore: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for her comment, which I endorse.
	The Newton report also refers to plea bargaining. I have always been a little suspicious of plea bargaining, particularly in the light of the problems associated with the supergrass trials of old, which led to serious miscarriages of justice. However, there is a separate issue, which is not necessarily plea bargaining, namely a different form of inducement in terms of co-operation with the police and security services. As I have said, we need to recognise that international terrorism is different in character and poses different challenges. We know that when such people are in custody, it can take a long time to establish their identity because they often have multiple identities and aliases. It is necessary to work through interpreters, which takes a lot longer, and religious observance can also cause delay.
	On interviewing, we must also consider the high-tech nature of international terrorism, which has not been a feature of previous IRA terrorism, the use of computers and the need to examine many hard drives. In such circumstances, we must look at other ways of seeking co-operation from suspects. Quite properly, they rely on the right to silence when advised to do so by lawyers, but in any event they have usually been trained in interview techniques and in how to avoid giving away information. Currently, the judges' rules prevent any offer of inducements to co-operate, but why could we not amend the law to allow suspects to give non-admissible statements in private for intelligence purposes only, which would not be used in evidence against them? Credit could be given for such co-operation if those suspects were subsequently prosecuted on other available evidence. Such statements would allow them to explain their involvement. People working in the security services have put it to me that several suspects over the past year were proud of what they had done and wanted to trumpet it, but were advised not to do so because of the impact on their prosecution. Had they been able to make a non-admissible statement, that might have been a way of securing information from them to fight terrorism while at the same time protecting their legal rights by giving them help, should they be prosecuted, in respect of sentencing.
	One issue that has not emerged from the debate so far is the question of advance passenger information. It was referred to in the Newton report and is, I believe, an extremely important issue, which we are not taking as seriously as we should. There is clear evidence that we are behind the game on that aspect of the war against terror. As we know, the US is demanding advance passenger information on certain flights coming into the US. Australia does the same as a matter of course, but our approach is rather hit and miss. There is some evidence that the Home Office is now starting to take it seriously, but we are behind the game and we must beef up our information to ensure that we are more aware of the people who enter the UK by air. That, of course, poses the question of which people are entering the UK through other routes.
	There has been much discussion of the concerns of the Muslim community about anti-terrorist legislation. It has been said that there have been many arrests, but no court cases and noor very fewprosecutions. Part of the frustration arises from the fact the many of the cases are sub judice, so it is not possible to discuss or explain them. As those cases come to trial, the Muslim community will, with a degree of patience, be able to see that some very serious offences have been committed. Ultimately, the work of the police and security services will prove justified in that respect. We should remember that not only Muslim groups are proscribed organisations under anti-terrorism legislation, but other terrorist groups such as the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam or ETA.
	There is also the question of how we organise the security services and I am pleased that the Home Secretary has confirmed their expansion. There is little doubt that attacks have been stopped or disrupted: work on the ricin plot provides a clear example of a highly successful security operation. It is also clear that international co-operation has significantly improved over the years, particularly in the case of France, which was one of our main critics in the immediate post-9/11 period. There remains the risk of some of our efforts being dissipated. Although we have made London a hostile environment for terrorists, I question whether that position applies nationwide. Unless we ensure that the country is properly policed, the efforts made in London will be dissipated as people move out from the capital.
	Part of the necessary work requires action on ordinary crimedocument or credit card fraud, for exampleusing ordinary policing techniques, but further investigating and analysing those cases, and attacking terrorism by attacking the wider criminality that those offences show. Investigating those sorts of offences can in time lead to the discovery of terrorist activity and terrorist suspects. In that context, I am concerned that the campaign against terrorism is not one of the targets in the national policing plan. It has targets for many aspects of policing, but I understand that the fight against terror is not included in the plan.
	The campaign is resource intensive, and we need to strive for a much more consistent performance throughout the country. That requires a consistency of capability throughout the country, which I am not sure that we have. In the end, there is a certain inevitability about having some form of national unitperhaps based on the Metropolitan police with satellite units around the countryif we are to combat terrorism effectively and ensure that our country is safe, free and able to protect and maintain the liberties that we have debated so much this afternoon.

William Cash: This debate must be judged in the context of the Civil Contingencies Bill. When the House discussed the range of powers being sought by the Government in that Bill, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) and the hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) all made similar points.
	We were all deeply concerned about the Civil Contingencies Bill, which may overlap the review period that will take place as a result of the Newton committee report. It is therefore even more important that the Bill be rectified to ensure that it contains the test of reasonableness, and that the courts' jurisdiction in these matters is not removed. The Bill's powers are so wide that they could even invade the territory of the 2001 Act.
	I made it clear in earlier interventions that I have concluded that there is no serious alternative way of dealing with the problems presented by the terrorist threat that we face. Unlike the Civil Contingencies Bill, the 2001 Act contains a test of reasonableness to be applied to the Home Secretary's decisions. I wholly disapprove of the Henry VIII clause, but it is worth considering it in the context of Lord Hoffman's remarks in connection with the Rehman case, which took place only a year or two ago.
	A test of reasonableness means that judges can review the Home Secretary's decisions, albeit with some conditions. With great respect to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham, he did not make it clear that the Special Immigration Appeals Commission could have regard to factors other than suspicion. I believe that courts have enough of an override capability to enable them to arrive at a proper review of decisions that have been taken, and I referred earlier to a recent case in which the Court of Appeal reversed a SIAC decision.
	These are undeniably difficult issues, and the tone of the debate suggests that the House has been treading carefully through a minefield of problems. We have tried to give some indicators to the Government as to how to proceed in reviewing provisions that are on the statute book already. To that extent, the Newton committee report has served an extremely useful purpose. It has addressed some subordinate and supplementary questions in a way that I consider entirely helpful.
	The central principle is whether the ultimate judgment in these matters should depend on the reasonable decisions of the Home Secretary. As long as the courts have the power to review those decisions, I believe that detention without trial is justifiable in these extremely difficult and dangerous circumstances. As I said earlier to my right hon. and learned Friend, we must also have regard to the power of SIAC to conduct the reviews.
	In the Rehman case, Lord Hoffmann said that the events of 11 September 2001 in Washington and New York were
	a reminder that in matters of national security, the cost of failure can be high. This seems to me to underline the need for the judicial arm of government to respect the decisions of ministers of the Crown on the question of whether support for terrorist activities in a foreign country constitutes a threat to national security. It is not only that the executive has access to special information and expertise in these matters. It is also that such decisions, with serious potential results for the community, require a legitimacy which can be conferred only by entrusting them to persons responsible to the community through the democratic process. If the people are to accept the consequences of such decisions, they must be taken by persons whom the people have elected and whom they can remove.
	In the context of the Civil Contingencies Bill, that makes my case, but in the context of the 2001 Act it makes the Government's case.
	There have been no fewer than five reports criticising the arrangements set out in the Act, and there is no doubt that some extremely learned authorities have expressed grave concern about its wide-ranging powers. However, in the balance of the serious threat of the kind of terrorism that faces us and the necessity to maintain public safetythe first duty of Governmentand national security, such powers are justified. In Constitutional and Administrative Law, Bradley and Ewing make the point:
	It is thus up to the courts to ensure that these wide powers are not misused.
	That is the position that the House should adopt. I do not say that because I want to be over-critical.

Robert Marshall-Andrews: How can it be up to the courts when judicial review is expressly excluded from the procedure? Allied to that point, if the procedure is justified, how long is it justified to keep a man in detention without trial? Two years have elapsed and no evidence has been provided, which signifies the probability that there is none that will be admissible. How much longer should those people remain in custody?

William Cash: The hon. and learned Gentleman says that judicial review is expressly excluded, but if he is referringas I amto the issuing of a certificate, the very use of the word reasonable in the context of section 21(1) of the 2001 Act gives the courts the right to question the proceedings. Furthermore, subsection (8) states:
	A decision of the Secretary of State in connection with certification under this section may be questioned in legal proceedings only under section 25 or 26,
	to which I have already referred. That is not eliminating judicial review; it imposes degrees on the conditions for its use.
	Sections 25 and 26 deal with appeals against certification and the review of certification. I have already covered that territory, but the provisions state that on appeal
	the Commission must cancel the certificate . . . if it considers that there are no reasonable grounds for a belief or suspicion of the kind referred to in section 21(1)(a) or (b), or
	and this is the point to which I referred earlier
	it considers that for some other reason the certificate should not have been issued.
	This is a difficult area and I do not approach it with the same certainty as I approach the Civil Contingencies Bill, on which the hon. and learned Gentleman and I think on almost identical lines.
	In the context of the debate and the report, however, I have to make a distinction, because we need to be immensely responsible in our attitudes. It may seem strange that a former shadow Attorney-General should line himself up with the Government, but it is important to make distinctions that are necessary in the interests of public safety and public security.
	I am not unaware of the dangers inherent in moving into such territory. For example, I am extremely mindful of the statements that have been made in respect of habeas corpus. I have not yet heard them mentioned today, but they seem to be an essential ingredient in this matter. In one very important case, it was said:
	Habeas corpus is probably the oldest of prerogative writs. Authorising its issue in appropriate cases is regarded by all judges as their first duty.
	That speaks for itself.
	The importance that needs to be attached to dealing with the question in the context of article 5.4 of the European convention on human rights is self-evident, but I have argued from the Front Bench in the pastI will do so from the Back Benches for as long as is necessarythat such questions should not be driven by human rights legislation itself, as I rather suspect that the Newton committee was driven. Indeed, that was also evident in the report published today by the Joint Committee on Human Rights. I take a very different view.
	Again, Lord Hoffmann said unequivocally in the case of Simms and O'Brien that Parliament has the right to amend or even repeal the Human Rights Act 1998, if unambiguous legislation is introduced expressly to do so. Therefore, to hinge the whole argument on human rights legislation raises the question of what is the right thing for Parliament to decide for itself to do in respect of the protection and security of the nation and the individuals who live in it.
	Similar questions arose in the case of Liversidge and Anderson in the early 1940s. Again, that case was decided on the ground that the words reasonable cause to believe were included in the Defence of the Realm Act 1915. That was decided in a manner that Lord Diplock, Lord Reid and several other judges have condemned. So a whole stack of very important civil liberty questions lies at the heart of this matter; but, by a rational explanation and by considering the objective and purpose of the legislation under debate, I strongly say that the first duty of the Government and, indeed, the Opposition is to have regard to the safety and security of the people of this country, including my constituents.
	I am more than prepared to suggest, therefore, that we should look at the legislation by all means and see whether we can come up with a sensible alternative, but let us not fall into the trap of putting the principle of jurisprudence above the security of the nation and the constituents whom we represent. That is genuinely what is at stake. Therefore, to that extent, I support the Government and disapprove of what the Newton committee report says on part 4.

Vera Baird: The Home Secretary is on strong grounds to ask for the renewal of these provisions today. Clearly, everyone agrees that there is still a threat to the nation's securitysomething about which one, of course, wants to be profoundly sceptical, but no one seems to doubt that the threat exists. In addition, not only the Home Secretary but the courts and the Carlile review all agree that the individuals who are being detained are a threat to the nation. The Government, with their public protection hat on, SIAC, with its ability to peruse convention rights and civil liberties on behalf of individuals, and Lord Carlile, who scrutinised such things on behalf of the public, all agree about that. It is a strength, too, that the Home Office has used this power very sparingly. I take some cheer from that for another reason: it suggests that the intelligence services, too, have to some extent kept matters in proportion, because they have not gone around looking for enormous amounts of evidence to press against enormous numbers of people. That is a reasonable, and cheering, inference. One's view of the matter depends on whose eyes one looks at it through. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) will not agree, but I am pleased that two people have been prosecuted since their detention on the basis of information that has since been made available, because that suggests that a degree of active investigation is continuing. Indeed, it must continuethere must be a permanent principle that prosecution is the right thing to do.
	Some hon. Members have called this the British Guantanamo, but there is no real justification for that. Okay, it is detention without trialI regret that and I do not like itbut the detention of those in Guantanamo Bay is not a scar; it is a suppurating boil on the face of democracy. People have been deliberately tipped into an offshore legal black holenot because they are seen first and foremost as a threat to the nation, but because the authorities want to interrogate them while they are completely disoriented and out of touch with everyone else.
	By contrast, the Home Secretary has told us that he uses a high test before he certifies, and I accept that. As soon as a certificate is issued, there is a rightalbeit perhaps only nominalto apply for bail. Although that is of course unlikely to succeed, it means that someone cannot be incarcerated and just left in prison, because they come to the attention of the judiciary immediately. Within three months, an appeal to SIAC is launched, followed by periodic reviews initiated by the authoritiesthe first after six months, and thereafter every three months. I do not accept that those appeals are futile, as the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) suggested. He quoted the Newton report as saying that there has been an insufficiently proactive and focused case management approach to determining whether an individual should continue to be detained. That is a criticism of the authorities. Newton adds the caveat that there has not yet been a review because the cases have been under appeal almost from the start. That has been a protracted process owing to a whole range of factors, some of them outside the control of the Home Office and clearly in the camp of SIAC. As for a review brought about by the authorities themselves, we are not yet even into that territory. The people I know who will act for the detainees will not participate in futile appealsthey will be meaningful appeals, not least because of their presence.
	It must be admitted that all the hearings will involve a partial recourse to secret intelligence. As a civil libertarian, I find that difficult to deal with. However, using a special advocate who takes instructions from the detainee and examines the evidence on his behalf, seems the best possible way of making that reasonable. He cannot speak to the detainee afterwardsthat is right, although it must be difficultbut takes his comprehensive instructions first and does his best. I am satisfied that the special advocates whom I know will do a sound job and would not co-operate with a procedure that was merely a futile exercise to be gone through.
	We have heard the criticism that this is detention on less than the civil standard of proof because it is based only on reasonable suspicion. That is unrealistic. I accept that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has adopted a far higher standard, and I am sure that it is not possible for SIAC to consider whether there are grounds for reasonable belief without considering the facts on which those grounds are based. Furthermore, it will do that with the jaundiced eye of a civil court that knows that its finding implies that someone has committed a crime, so it will adopt the ordinarily elevated standard of proof that a civil court adopts in that situation.
	That said, 12 people have been in custody for almost two years without being told exactly what they are alleged to have done. They are in the particularly hopeless position of not knowing how long their detention will be; they are of necessity in a high-security prison that is usually reserved for the worst criminals, although there remains a very real possibility that they are not criminals at all, or that some of them are not; and their issue has never been tested. I would add that these powers apply only to non-citizens, all of whom are Muslims subject to immigration control. It is arguably legally discriminatorythe House of Lords will decide that soonand is certainly extremely discriminatory in the real world. Moreover, Newton says that the threat, contrary to what appeared to be the case two years ago, when it came almost wholly from foreign nationals, comes almost equally from UK citizens, but the measure provides protection only against foreign nationals. Having derogated from the European convention, abrogated basic rights to freedom and risked community disharmony, we have at best gained only partial protection. It cannot last, and there is no basis on which it should be allowed to do so. It must be subjected, as we are said to be subject by al-Qaeda, to constant attack.
	As my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) said, we should be operating in the realms of criminal law, and should move towards that as quickly as possible. When I asked my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary whether, if we work hard at expanding the capability of the criminal law, we will succeed in getting rid of part 4, he said, very clearly, no. We have no option but to accept that todayeveryone agrees that there is an emergency and a threat. We cannot possibly demand that the measure ends now, so we must vote for it tonight. However, it is my right hon. Friend who will, as many people have said, carry the can if any of the detainees cause trouble if he lets them out or gives up the right to detain them. He will be the last person to be convinced, so we consulteeswe are all consultees in the processhave a task to perform. We have to work to try to get him to change his mind about part 4.
	All of us who are consulted should aim to ensure that the criminal law can achieve the successful prosecution of British or foreign nationals who are terrorists. There is no other way in which can we persuade the Home Secretary that we can do without part 4, and we must do so by letting the provision fall into disuse and using the criminal law more often. I accept the point made strongly by the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir Brian Mawhinney) that verifying intelligence is simultaneously a great difficulty in the procedure and an inadequate basis for evidence. However, we must seek to crystallise intelligence into evidence so that it can be scrutinised in the way in which courts usually scrutinise and verify the evidencefrankly, it is very similar to intelligence evidencewhich they hear day in, day out about organised crime. That evidence comes from informants, convicted criminals and, sometimes, deep, dark parts of the underworld. It is uncertain in nature, but courts scrutinise it once it has been put into a statement or an oral form, and make up their mind about it.
	We must do the same with intelligence. As more than one Member has said, there is a genuine need to challenge the current culture of intelligence secrecy, which goes beyond phone tapping. If one were to suggest to the intelligence services that they submit a statement to the court, they would say that it would work out who it was from, how they got it, who told them about it and so on. Like any culture, if left unchallenged, the assumptions of that culture of secrecy will become set in stone. I suspect that that is happening, and I shall return to the subject when I deal briefly with phone tapping.
	More intelligence should be admitted in criminal trials. We should not forget the powers that are already available. The Criminal Justice Act 2003 allows the admission of hearsay. It allows first-hand evidenceI saw it. However, it also allows second-hand evidencehe told me he saw itthird-hand evidence, he told me she said she saw it, and written instead of oral evidence. If that is good enough for ordinary criminal trials, it is clearly good enough for terrorist trials, and is a way in which intelligence evidence can be admitted. The weight put on it is a matter for the court, but it is available and is a mechanism that should be tried.
	Witness protection measures are sophisticated and go far and wide. There are, for example, devices that distort voices. I appeared in a major case of organised crime in which an informant gave evidence. He was produced from nowhere in the sense that he had been circling in a car before he came into court. He was dressed like a sort of Indian mystiche was covered from head to foot in white clothing and wore a patently false beard. One could not therefore tell whether he was tall or short, fat or thin, or anything else about him. Despite all that, he gave evidence from behind a screen and left through a back door. However, he was worth bringing to court because he had an impact on the case. Witness protection measures, even as bizarre as those, are used in the ordinary courts and can be used in the instance that we are considering.
	As the Newton committee recommends, surveillance, although expensive, can be much more intensive than it currently appears to be and can be admitted. More overseas courts admit more surveillance than we have historically ever done. Again, I suspect that the intelligence culture of deep, dark secrecy is responsible for that.
	Hon. Members have made points about phone tapping, but we are under increasing pressure to change the rule. In an intervention, I mentioned a case in which I appeared shortly before being elected. Members of an alleged international drugs ring were telephoning about day-to-day arrangements for dealing with the consignment. The phone taps that were picked up at the Dutch end were admitted into the Old Bailey and those that were presumably picked up at the English endno one can say whether there were any, but it would be nonsense if there were notcould not be used. Our European partners will not tolerate for much longer a position whereby they can give us evidence to help get rid of international crime but we neither use our own nor give it to them. Clearly, there is plenty of scope and the sooner the review produces a positive answer, the better. Again, I suspect that the security services have been unduly cautious for a long time.
	There is a further problem about admitting such material. If a prosecution wants to use 20 minutes of the product of phone tapping, when a person's phone has been tapped for six months, it would be necessary, for fairness, to disclose the whole six months to the defence so that it can ascertain whether anything helps to exculpate the accused. Of course, that is enormously expensive, cumbersome and perhaps capable of more closely approaching a threat to the method of obtaining the material. However, I believe that there is scope for compromise, probably through an independent judge scrutinising the material. Again, it is a tactic that can be used.
	There is therefore a rainbow of measures, some extant and some potential. They form a rainbow only in the sense of ultimately offering some light for detainees because they will facilitate bringing more of them to trial. I accept that the standard of proof that is currently used is high and we are therefore, at all stages, not far away from being able to try such people if only we are a little imaginative about criminal procedure. To try such people must be our aim, thereby reducing the need for the part 4 powers by removing the foreign nationals out of Belmarsh and into court and protecting us, through the courts, from the British national extremists, who, we are told, now constitute an equal threat.
	We consultees must work with the Home Office ceaselessly and use our imagination to build on those and other possibilities, with the intention of shaving part 4 to the minimum and in the hope that we can entirely remove any need for it to survive.
	I end on a note of uncertainty, which runs through my position on the matter. If we go through the process, work hard, smarten up the criminal justice system, put the part 4 detainees on trial but part 4 continues, we fail to convict them and they are acquitted, will they simply be detained again?

Julian Lewis: The limited amount of time and the number of hon. Members who still wish to speak means that I shall endeavour to be as concise as possible.
	Most of the debate so far, including the erudite contribution of the hon. and learned Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) has rightly focused on the legal issues that confront the Home Secretary and the Minister. I do not envy either of them their dilemmas. They must consider, in the domestic context, what is known in the international context as the problem of pre-emption. The Minister summed it up succinctly in her intervention on my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg). However, my aim is to consider the security issues that have emerged concerning the disclosure of intercept data in criminal trials and the recruitment of extra staff by MI5. Most of us would accept that it is fundamental to counter-intelligence work to maintain a strong element of surprise and keep one's enemy guessing. It was therefore a little unexpected to read in The Guardian on Monday 23 February:
	MI5 has won the backing of Tony Blair to allow the product of telephone taps to be used in court cases.
	Historically, it has usually been the other way round: politicians usually agitate for the disclosure of such material; security professionals tend, for very good reasons, to resist them.
	That point has been illustrated repeatedly over the past 80 years. One can go back to 1927 and the famous raid on the Soviet trade delegation and the ARCOS company. The Home Secretary disclosed the important techniques used by the security services, and we were unable to take similar action against Soviet dangers for many years after that. As recently as the first attack on the twin towers in the early 1990s, the Americans revealed information about their ability to listen to mobile telephone conversations, which ensured that they did not get that sort of warning when al-Qaeda tried again successfully in 2001. The danger of such disclosures is not only that terrorists learn what can be tapped; they may also learn what cannot be tapped and put that knowledge to use in lethal attacks in the future.
	Let us consider what the would-be suicide terrorists and their co-ordinators will be trying to do in the months and years ahead. They will try to hide their affiliations; they will try to plan in secret; they will try to keep their communications secure and will therefore try to find out which communications systems cannot be monitored; they will try to find out what MI5 knows about them and their plans; and they will therefore try to infiltrate the Security Service to secure all those objectives. Conversely, the Security Service needs to operate in ways in which as little as possible of its intelligence-gathering capacity and its manning and recruitment are revealed.
	That is why I am concerned about last weekend's flurry of publicity, and I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), who I am pleased to see is still in his place, for also voicing his concern. The Home Secretary sought to brush aside my interventionsrather flippantly, I thoughtsuggesting that the announcements made at the weekend were old reports about a process that had been ongoing for a long time.
	It is a fact that all the reports that appearedI have a sheaf of them from which I could quote at leisureindicated that recruitment will primarily be for the future. The 1,000 extra surveillance officers will apparently be in place after a time-lapse of three or four more years. I cannot see what could be gained by advertising to people who have an interest in trying to get into the security services for nefarious purposes that the mass recruitment of Arabic speakers has yet to be completed. The matter should have been dealt with in delphic terms, and confirmed only after the process had been carried out.

David Winnick: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Julian Lewis: I would rather not, because the hon. Gentleman's hon. Friends will not be able to speak.
	I concludein line, I hope, with my promise to be concisewith two quotes from items in the press today. In The Independent, Dr. Brian Jones, formerly the leading nuclear, biological and chemical analyst for the Defence Intelligence Service, who has intimate knowledge of these matters, states:
	From an intelligence and security perspective, it seems rather odd to so publicise a change to an organisation that normally operates with stealth and in the shadows.
	Indeed, in The Independent today there is also a small item headed
	Would-be spies rush to visit website.
	Underneath we read:
	Visits to MI5's website increased sixfold at the weekend after it was revealed that the security service intended to recruit 1,000 new staff to counter a feared al-Qa'ida attack on Britain..
	I can only hope that the Security Service knows what it is doing in recruiting en masse in this very transparent way. It is a fact that would-be spies are rushing to apply. The question is: are they would-be spies on behalf of MI5 or are they would-be spies against MI5?

Robert Marshall-Andrews: I also shall be brief. I should like to start by making two general propositions.
	The first is something that is blazingly obvious, which is that there are a large number of people in this country who are in prison and who deserve to be there. There are a large number of people in this country who are in prison for a long time and who deserve to be there. I can claim a small or modest part in the imprisonment of some of them at least, either because I prosecuted them or, possibly even more so, because I defended them from time to time.Whereas many deserve to be in prison, no man and no woman in this country deserves to have his or her civil rights abnegated, and there is no reason that I am aware of for that to happen.
	As part of this debate, I wish to state that there are 17 people we know of whose civil rights have been totally abnegated. They have been in prison for years, without recourse to proper legal procedures, without trial, without knowledge of the reasons for which they are in prison, and with every single civilised practice that we have in criminal jurisprudence in this country in abeyance. The importance of this is that it is not their rights that are abnegated. It is not their individual rights that are the subject of abuse and attack, because civil liberty does not belong to individuals. Civil liberty is something that we own as a collective whole.
	What abuses those people abuses me. Without wishing to paraphrase or misquote the great poet, I would add that what diminishes them also diminishes me. The fact that there are those in this society, in my society, in my country, who are in this position now is an abnegation of my liberty in the same way as it is an abnegation of theirs.
	The second general point that I wish to make is about al-Qaeda, which poses two threats to this country, both of them grave. The first is a threat to the liberty, life and property of our individual citizens and those who are within our jurisdiction. That is a grave threat, a threat that al-Qaeda has already demonstrated the ability to carry out.
	The second threat is infinitely more grave, however. It is the erosion of our civil liberty. Every time our civil liberty is eroded because of al-Qaeda it is a victory, not for the Home Office, nor for the security services, but for al-Qaeda itself. Every time we erode our civil liberties, and do it at al-Qaeda's behest, it is a victory for al-Qaeda, a victory infinitely more profound and infinitely more deadly than the injury or damage to property or even to life.
	We have now taken draconian powers as a result of the emergence of that terrorist, criminal organisation. I shall give one example under the Terrorism Act 2000, which hon. Members may be interested in. It is now an offence to possess Scouting for Boys. I have a copy; I have had it for a long time. It is an interesting booknow dated, of courseby George Baden-Powell. I have seen it on a list of books in an indictment. It is undoubtedly an offence to possess it. Why? It is because that little book tells one how to live in woodland, how to whittle sticks, how to build a bivouac, how to make a fire and how to survive. It is an offence to possess it, and it does not even have to be provedI acknowledge the look of astonishment on the face of my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner), who knows me well enough to know that if I am talking about law it is one of the very few things that I get right. It is an offence to possess the book at all under the Actit does not even have to be proved that someone intends to use it for terrorist purposes. Let us not pretend that we have not ladled on our protections as thickly as possible.
	May I pass over the excellent report that the Newton committee has produced? The committee has proved that on occasions the great and good can be precisely that, and has provided us with a report that is eloquent, intellectually sound, well argued and wrong in only a small number of particulars.
	I pass on to the real point that I want to make. It will take me only two minutes, which means that I can leave my hon. Friend the Member for City of York (Hugh Bayley) some time effectively to wind up the debate for the Back Benches. I do not understand the rigorous distinction that has been drawn in the House between criminal activity and terrorism: doing so represents a grave danger. Terrorism is a crimeit is as simple as that. It is the terrorist who seeks warrior status and to be at war. The IRA persistently sought warfare status against us and we persistently denied it. Many of us cavil at the expression the war on terrorism because terrorism is the pursuit of serious crimepure and simpleand should be treated as such.
	We have all the ammunition, experience and criminal procedures necessary to prosecute terrorism as the most serious of crimes. If we did that, we would cease to dignify those whom we prosecute with the status of those held in Belmarsh, who are undoubtedly regarded as martyrs to, and warriors in, their cause. I can say straightaway that there would be no problem with evidence. We deal with covert surveillance in the courts every single day of the week. The system is now so effective and deadly that conviction rates have increased markedly in the past two years. We deal every day of the week with public interest immunity applications. People who prosecute go before judges and say, I have an informant, but I cannot reveal his identity because he would be at risk. In cases of which I have experience, such informants were every bit as much at risk as would be those who informed on al-Qaeda or other such criminal groups. Judges are perfectly capable of protecting the identity of those who give such evidence. We can deal with that without any trouble at all. The problem of not dealing with the situation in such as way is, as I have said, that we create a reservoir of hatred and resentment, which is not the hallmark characteristic of the way in which we deal with our criminal law.
	I simply conclude as I did the last time we had this debate. The exclusion of the courts and judicial review is an abhorrence within our system. It is a gross abuse of our civil rights that should not be tolerated. It is a common truth that we do not improve human behaviour by the denial of human libertiesthat has never been done and never will be.

Hugh Bayley: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) for being brief and giving me a few moments to speak in the debate. He is unlikely to be convicted and imprisoned for the possession of Scouting for Boyshe even forgot the first name of its author, so he clearly has not been reading it closely.
	It is right and proper that the House has concentrated on the fight against terrorism and the security risks that face our country because that is what the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 exists principally to address. However, I wish to speak briefly about one of the Act's criminal provisions that would have become void if this debate had not taken place and if there had not been a similar debate in the other place.
	As I indicated earlier, I want to speak about part 12 of the Act, which deals with the problem of international bribery and corruption. I have a longstanding interest in the issue. I introduced a ten-minute Bill six or seven years ago, and I was delighted when the Government introduced measures in the Act to make bribery or corruption by British citizens or British companies abroad an offence in British law.
	Legislation is necessary. It is estimated that corruption costs $1.5 trillion globally, some 5 per cent. of the world economy, and it makes business difficult in many countries. The CBI used to accept with great reluctance that bribery was a necessary way to do business in certain markets, but it dropped that approach some years ago because the level of bribe required in some markets simply got to the point where it was impossible to do business at all.
	I became interested in the issue because bribery and corruption undermine development in many poor countries. When President Mobutu of Zaire was driven out of his country, his personal wealth was judged to be almost as great as his country's national debt. A case is before the courts in London in which the Government of Nigeria are seeking to have returned to Nigeria $1.3 billion that is currently in the bank accounts of the former Nigerian President, the late General Abacha. Such a sum represents 20 or 30 years of British aid to Nigeria. It becomes completely impossible to carry out development assistance in circumstances in which Heads of State, other leading public officials or politicians corruptly accept money of that order. Corruption at the top trickles down through the ranks of public officials and police and customs officers until it paralyses development.
	The Newton committee agreed with the Joint Committee on the draft Corruption Bill that there should be a radical simplification of the bribery and corruption law in the forthcoming Bill. The Home Secretary in the discussion paper that he published today does not agree with all the arguments of the Newton committee, but I am sure that he remains committed to the principle of introducing new legislation on corruption.
	Part 12 of the Act is essentialfor the time being at least, until there is other legislationto the United Kingdom's compliance with the 1997 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development convention on combating bribery. This year, the United Kingdom faces an evaluation by the OECD's working group on bribery to see whether we comply with the convention. Also this year, we face an evaluation by the Council of Europe's group of states against corruption of our compliance with the Council of Europe's convention on corruption, which was ratified by our Government in December last year.

Richard Shepherd: The hon. Gentleman is making a most important contribution on an issue that has not been touched on in the debate. A report in today's Financial Times under the authorship of Laurence Cockcroft, the chairman of Transparency International (UK), refers to the
	recent disclosure of a discreet briefing by Jack Straw, foreign secretary, last year to Foreign Office staff, in which he said UK business people caught making illegal facilitation payments to foreign officials would not be prosecuted.
	Is the hon. Gentleman not alarmed and shocked at that?

Hugh Bayley: I am concerned to hear that, although I know that the Foreign Secretary has sent instructions to all posts abroad that they should report to the Foreign Office cases in which it is believed that there has been bribery or corruption of public officials in other countries by UK citizens. It is necessary to collect the evidence if we are to have prosecutions and convictions under the legislation. I am not in the business of drumming dozens of business men through the British courts and getting them sent to prison, but it is important for there to be a few cases so that the business community realises that this is a business practice that cannot and should not happen.
	Through the good offices of the Solicitor-General, I have had the opportunity to meet her and her officials and the Serious Fraud Office, and I know that there are cases under investigation. I should hate to see the legislation in part 12 of the 2001 Act fall before new and better legislation is on the statute book, because all the effort that the Serious Fraud Office and others have put into gaining evidence, so that cases can be brought before the court to see how this legislation works in practice, would then be wasted. Dealing with any serious financial crime, and gathering evidence for prosecutions, is a costly exercise. It is especially costly and difficult when the evidence needs to be collected from abroad.
	The United States has had legislation of this kind on its statute book for almost 30 years, and has brought some 29 cases against 23 companies and 54 individuals. Fines imposed have ranged from $10,000 to $21.8 million, and some company executives have been sent to prison. International bribery and corruption are serious offences, and are not victimless crimes. The people who have been bribed in the American cases include Presidents, Government Ministers, military officers and Members of Parliament in 34 different countries, including developed ones, ranging from Nigeria, Mexico and Iraq to Israel, Italy and Canada.
	Unlike the US legislation, ours is new and cases have not yet been brought to court under it. I hope that the Minister can reassure me that the legislation in part 12 will remain on the statue book until such time as we have a new corruption Act. I welcome the commitment that the Home Secretary gave, in response to my intervention, that this issue will be addressed in the serious and organised crime White Paper. I hope that the White Paper will cover the enforcement of the law, as well as the legislative framework for this matter.

Patrick Mercer: We have been extremely lucky in today's debate to have three members of the Newton committee with us: the right hon. Members for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) and for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), and my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir Brian Mawhinney). They were all able to add much depth and clarity to a debate that I found useful and enlightening.
	The Home Secretary started with a lengthy but clear exposition of exactly what the committee had said and his response to it. We did not need that to be quite so long, because it had all been trailed in the press several days in advance, so none of it came as much of a surprise. However, my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis) then made an extremely balanced and clear contribution, setting the agenda for the rest of the debate. He talked particularly about part 4 powers, and said that the fact that the Government had agreed to review not only those powers but the whole Act, including the details of intercept evidence, after six months would probably mean that the Opposition would support the Government on this measure.
	The question of intercept evidence has been mentioned widely. The right hon. Members for Islington, South and Finsbury and for Berwick-upon-Tweed, the hon. Member for Walsall, North (David Winnick), my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) and a number of others all talked about intercept. Although it is undoubtedly extremely important, perhaps I might add a note of caution from my practical experience of it. Intercept is not only, as the hon. and learned Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) said, a question of telephone tappingalthough I know that she knows that. As we move away from the last war, as the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) said, and start to look at the new warI shall be careful about using that phrase in the presence of the hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews)or at the new campaign, we have to understand that we will be intercepting not only clear speech on the telephone, but veiled speech on the internet, in e-mails and in other means of electronic communication, which it will be extremely hard even for trained analysts to understand.
	That point was clearly brought out by the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham). Using such information as evidence will not be simple. The people involved do not use clear speech. They do not say, Let's organise an attack for next Tuesday using three rocket launches and four people carriers. It is not done like that. Even in the days of the IRA, which was relatively unsophisticated, not a single terrorist in my experience used clear speech.
	It is clear from the difficulties with flying aircraft back and forth to America that whatever is being intercepted is extremely difficult to interpret. Turning that interpretation into evidence will be very tricky. I thoroughly understand the Government's reservations and applaud the points made by my right hon. Friends the Members for Haltemprice and Howden and for North-West Cambridgeshire and other hon. Members, but using such evidence will not be as simple as it seems. Nevertheless, I appreciate that the Government have agreed to review the matter.
	One or two other points emerged clearly from the debate. The hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten) was backed up by the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen and the hon. Member for Walsall, North. All spoke about the racial aspects of the legislationhow the Muslim community could feel particularly victimised. Indeed, the Muslim community in my constituency is extremely uneasy about the developments of the past two years. There is no doubt that the community feels scrutinised, if not victimised. I therefore ask the Minister what the Government will do about introducing a Muslim outreach programme such as that which the American Government so successfully implemented following 11 September 2001. How are we approaching that matter and how are we ensuring that such communities feel less uncomfortable? As my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) said, we depend greatly on those very communities for intelligence, information and recruits for our intelligence services, which I am told are developing and expanding considerably.
	At least three colleagues spoke about allowing subordinate legislation to amend primary legislationmy hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) made a powerful intervention on the subject. It is clear from his remarks, as well as those made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash), that, hand in hand, the Terrorism Act 2000 and the Civil Contingencies Bill are changing the face of legislation. We must be desperately careful that extreme measures do not lead to extreme legislation which, to paraphrase the hon. and learned Member for Redcar, we later regret or have to allow to wither on the vine rather than use day to day.
	We have been told clearlyalmost to the point of nauseamthat extra resources will be given to MI5, but where will extra resources come from for MI6, GCHQ, the National Criminal Intelligence Service, Customs and Excise, immigration services and the host of other agencies that collect information or intelligence? May I go one step further and ask the Minister to what extent those disparate organisations will be streamlined as a result of the White Paper on our intelligence services?
	There has been a lot of exposure in the press about lack of economies of scale in our intelligence agencies. At least two contributors, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham and the hon. and learned Member for Redcar, have expressed their reservations about the use of intelligence, the gathering of it and the virtue of it. Only by streamlining our intelligence services will economies of scale be reaped. Only by doing that will we be able physically to produce a set of intelligence that it may be possible to interpret so that it can be used as evidence in court. I would be grateful for the Minister's comments on that.
	Although I do not believe that this matter has been covered tonight, I would be extremely interested to know what measures the Government intend to take against those people who are recruiting the British suicide bombers whom we have seen in action recently. To the best of my knowledge, three Britons have now destroyed themselves with suicide bombs, and I believe that they were recruited in this country in such a way that it was probably not a criminal act. What will we do about those leaders who choose to suborn the people whom they are meant to lead? What powers will we have to prevent that sort of recruiting, which manifests itself clearly in terror overseas and no doubt in due course here at home?
	I want to underline the points made by several Members that this legislation puts too much emphasis on what has existed previously. The idea of internmentthat is what it ishas clearly not worked in the past. We have been through that, and looked at the lesson. We cannot try to reintroduce internment even in a modified or attenuated version as we see in Belmarsh today. Can the Minister assure me that we will look at new ways of dealing with this matter?
	We are blessed with excellent security services. It has already been mentioned that this time last year we were facing an attack in this country by a chemical or perhaps a biological agentthe information can be interpreted in two ways. Ricin was going to be used in north London. Similarly, in the middle of February last year, armoured vehicles were deployed around London Heathrow airport to protect us from a surface-to-air missile threat. Both those victoriesvictories they werewere based on solid and profound intelligence. We deterred both those operations. Had we not done so, I suspect that the whole nature of today's debate would have been different. We have the men and women of our intelligence agencies and our police force to thank for that.
	My last point has been made clearly, not least by the hon. and learned Member for Medway: we cannot allow our liberties to be compromised by bad laws. We must uphold the laws of this land. We must have effective and proper laws that reflect our particular brand of liberal democracy. If we do not, we give way to the pressures of the terrorists and we become as bad as they are.

Beverley Hughes: First, this has been an outstanding debate. We have had some powerful and thoughtful contributions, which were almost exclusively on part 4, which I will address in a moment. I want to start with the issues that have been raised about other parts of the legislation.
	The shadow Secretary of State spoke about freezing orders and identity fraud, and he has seen the reply in our response to the Newton committee. On the freezing orders, it is important that he notes that while we have used the Terrorism (United Nations Measures) Order 2001 up to date, there may be some time in the future when we will need to act on our own quickly. It is therefore important to keep that power in place. More generally, in relation to other parts of the legislation, the fact that some powers may not have been used much does not detract from their deterrent effect. That is an important point that the police and others have made to us.
	My hon. Friend the Member for City of York (Hugh Bayley) made specific points about part 12 and the bribery provisions. I am well aware of his long-standing interest in bribery, particularly bribery overseas. That relates to his concern about international development. [Laughter]. I am sure that my hon. Friend and his constituents will understand what I meant. I was casting no aspersions. Anyway, I can reassure my hon. Friend that we would not want to lose the powers in part 12 until alternative legislation was in place.
	We heard speeches about other parts of the Act from two members of the Newton committee, the right hon. Members for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir Brian Mawhinney) and for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith). I echo the Home Secretary's thanks to all members of the committee, particularly those from whom we have heard today. I will not comment on all the issues that they raisedI hope they will understandbut I trust they will accept that the Government's response to the report is serious and considered. The Government have a duty to respond to reports, and it is in the nature of things that we will not agree with everything in them, but according to my count we have agreed with, or said we are already consulting or acting on, about 60 per cent. of the committee's recommendations. I hope its members will accept that our disagreement with some does not negate our view of the seriousness of the work that has been done and the important contribution that it has made to the debate. Indeed, the Home Secretary's document states that the committee's work and that of Lord Carlile have helped to shape the debate that we hope will take place shortly.
	Inevitably, today's debate has mostly concerned part 4 powers and whether, as the committee suggests, they should be replaced as a matter of urgency. The House has discussed the various alternatives that the committee, and Members who have spoken today, have suggested. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has already explained why the part 4 powers were introduced, and why we still need them. I think that the unprecedented and horrific attacks on 11 September, followed by the attacks that have been mentioned todayin Bali, Saudi Arabia, Casablanca, Jakarta and Istanbulare testimony to the need for those provisions. It is clear that international terrorists remain willing and able to attack British interests at home and, indeed, abroad, as we saw in Istanbul. The absence of a successful attack so far on the United Kingdom or other western targets could lead some to conclude that the threat has been reduced or confined to parts of the world where such an attack would have little impact on us, but that is not so.

William Cash: In the context of the potential for something of that kind to happen, may I point out that the Civil Contingencies Bill would almost certainly become operative? Given that the Home Secretary supports the Bill, will the Minister assure us that the test of reasonableness inherent in the 2001 Act will be applied to it, and that there will be no ousting of the courts' jurisdiction? After all, the Bill will overtake and possibly subsume the provisions of the Act.

Beverley Hughes: I know that the hon. Gentleman is very exercised about the Civil Contingencies Bill. I can tell him that alongside the written statement on resilience that we placed in the public domain today are powers in the BillI think they are the powers that concern himto be used in such emergencies. They are intended to enhance our resilience in the event of an attack, and will be used only in those extreme circumstances.
	As Members know, the threat is real and the risks high and long-term. We face a public emergency that threatens the life of the nation. I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar (Vera Baird), who summarised the various sources of consensus on that point, but let me now explain why we think this particular threat presents us with challenges that are very different from those we have experienced so far. It is perpetrated by people in different groups in many different countriesand by people in loose, fluid federationswith no obvious political objective except destruction. That means that those groups are very difficult to penetrate, and gathering and evaluating intelligence is very difficult.
	Moreover, the tactics, which include suicide bombings, mean that prosecution after the event is, by definition, totally irrelevant. So prevention of such attacks is critical, which means that our main source of evidence has to be intelligence and similar material, not evidence after the fact. Taking all those factors in the round, the hallmarks of our normal judicial system that we value highlyopen court; defendants hearing all the evidence; bringing to court witnesses, whose lives would then be threatenedoffer us no realistic prospect of prosecution in key cases. That is the dilemma that we face in the light of this new kind of terrorism.
	So how are we facing this threat? Firstthis point is worth making, because it was not made particularly strongly today we are prosecuting where we can under existing terrorist legislation and the criminal law. There have been six prosecutions under the Terrorism Act 2000 and convictions under other legislation. It is important to note that many convictions in relation to terrorist activity are not necessarily prosecuted under that legislation, but under alternative criminal legislation, a recent example being the arrest and charging of Mr. Badat in Gloucestershire. Initially, that arrest was made under the 2000 Act, but inquiries led to his being charged under the Explosive Substances Act 1883. Other current cases, such as those involving ricin, and the offences arising from the death of DC Oake, may involve the laying of other kinds of charges.

Brian Mawhinney: In looking at this issue, will the Minister reflect on the evidence that the Home Office gave to us in what was probably the most unsatisfactory of our evidence sessions? We asked what the Government's view would be if people whom they suspected of being terrorists were prosecuted under the rest of the legislative programme and sent to normal prisons. We asked what their assessment was of the risk of such people's propagating their terrorist philosophy, were they to be exposed to a range of people with whom they would not have contact under the terms of restraining terrorist legislation. The Home Office gave no effective answer. This is an issue that needs to be explored.

Beverley Hughes: The right hon. Gentleman raises an important point, but I can assure him that the Prison Service and the other relevant agencies have well-established systems for dealing with people who present such a risk when in custody. We will use whichever means we can to get the maximum number of prosecutions, and the maximum level of sentence for any person whom we suspect of terrorism, whether it means using criminal law or not.
	In terms of how we are dealing with the current situation, we also have the part 4 provisions. I want to make a couple of points about the Special Immigration Appeals Commission and the way in which the certification process has been used. Members need to understand that SIAC is not an inferior type of court. In fact, by definition it is a court of superior record, which is chaired by a High Court judge. There are hearings in advance of individual appeals that deal with disclosure. The special advocates have played a powerful and important role in challenging material that the Secretary of State has put to SIAC. During the appeals themselves, and in examining social security witnesses, the advocates have actively challenged material and raised relevant points of law. It is very important that Members understand the SIAC process.
	I also want to put on the record a rebuttal of the contention of the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) that because such people are in detention, the agencies would take their foot off the pedal in terms of reviewing cases and considering whether information has changed. That is not true. Every case is kept under active review by the Home Office, the police and the security services both prior to individual appeals and as part of the six-monthly and three-monthly reviews.
	On the certification process, it is important to understand that Lord Carlile stated that the Secretary of State used his powers proportionately and certified people only in appropriate cases. Members will know that in the 11 individual appeals that SIAC has determined, all the certificates were upheld.
	That said, it is right and important, for the reasons identified by hon. Members in the House today, that we debate widely how we should respond to the threats of the future and whether, as the Home Secretary said earlier, we can establish incrementally additional means of dealing effectively with the threat that we face.
	The Newton committeeothers have agreed todaybelieves that the powers of detention should be replaced, that all terrorists should be dealt with by the same route regardless of nationality and through means that do not require a derogation. That would be the ideal, but the question is how, at the same time as achieving those objectives, we can provide an effective response to the particular characteristics of the new terrorism that we face. That point was powerfully made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore).
	Some alternatives have been proposed. The hon. Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer) himself provided a good critique of the limitations of intercept evidence. Terrorists know that we intercept them and the quality of the information that we glean is variable as potential usable evidence. Intercept evidence, investigating magistrates and surveillance all have potential as a package, but the difficulty is that, either alone or together, they do not overcome one of the main problemsthe nature of the intelligence that we would want to present and how we protect the lives of the agents who provide much of that intelligence, often by infiltrating small groups of people.
	My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar spoke about using hearsay evidence. If a person were to say in court that someone told them that such and such a thing either happened or was said, the agent could and would be identified. I hope that our forthcoming debate will address that major obstacle.
	We are not currently convinced that any of the alternative proposals mentioned today, even if taken together, provide a workable alternative to the part 4 powers. As the Home Secretary said, we face a challenge and the Governmentand, indeed, the whole Housewould be criticised if the country suffered a terrorist attack and we had not taken the necessary precautions. We need to balance the need to protect the nation with the need to protect the individual freedoms and liberties that are at the heart of our democracy.
	The rights of the individual are central, but they are not confined to the rights of the suspected terrorist. Every member of the public, every family, every child has the right to expect the maximum security and freedom from harm in a mature democratic society. Our dilemma is how best to balance the rights of that majority and the rights of the few. It has to be a balance. To argue, as some have done today, that the rights of suspectsor the rights of the individual theoreticallyin any process of prevention or prosecution must be supremely paramount is to deny the citizen's right to security. In our view, to say that the processes and principles of law as we know them already are the only ones possible is to deny the nature of the terrorism that we are dealing with.
	As we go forward, I hope that we can maintain the spirit that we have had today. We have made an excellent start, and I enjoin the public to join in the debate, as it is in their main interest that the Government are acting.

Question put, That the amendment be made.
	The House divided: Ayes 68, Noes 313.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Main Question put and agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That this House takes note of the Privy Counsellor Review Committee Report on the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 Review (HC 100), which was laid before this House on 18th December 2003.
	EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 119(9) (European Standing Committees),

Protecting the European Communities' Financial Interests

That this House takes note of European Union Documents No. OJ C286, Vol. 46, the European Court of Auditors 2002 Annual Report; No. 11954/03 and ADD 1, Commission Report evaluating the activities of the European Anti-Fraud Office; No. 11993/03, Commission Annual Report 2003: protection of the financial interests of the Communities; Third activity report of the European Anti-Fraud Office for the year ended June 2002; and Fourth activity report of the European Anti-Fraud Office for the year ended June 2003; and supports the Government's continuing efforts to promote measures to improve financial management and combat fraud against the European Community's financial interests.[Jim Fitzpatrick.]
	Question agreed to.

PETITION
	  
	Fireworks

Howard Stoate: I have pleasure in presenting a petition initiated by my constituents Mrs. Jess Southerton and Mrs. Susan Stewart and signed by more than 750 of my constituents, mostly from the village of Hartley. My constituents welcome recent legislation restricting the sale and availability of fireworks to the general public, but feel that further legislation banning the over-the-counter sale of fireworks to the public is necessary in view of the large number of domestic accidents and injuries caused by the inappropriate use of fireworks by untrained members of the public that continue to occur to residents and animals in communities such as Hartley.
	The petition states:
	The Humble Petition of residents of North Kent sheweth
	That the over the counter sale of fireworks to the general public, who are untrained in the correct handling and use of fireworks for use in private firework displays, unnecessarily endangers the health and safety of their users, as well as onlookers and passers-by, and causes unnecessary distress and nuisance to neighbours, domestic animals and livestock.
	Wherefore your petitioners pray that your honourable House will take such measures as lie within its power to prevent the over-the-counter sale of fireworks to the general public at all times.
	And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
	To lie upon the Table.

LINDISFARNE GOSPELS

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.[Jim Fitzpatrick.]

Joyce Quin: I am very pleased to be given this opportunity to urge the Government to take steps to ensure the permanent return of the Lindisfarne gospels to the north-east of England. I am also pleased to see in the Chamber several of my right hon. and hon. Friends who take a great interest in this issue, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Tyneside, North (Mr. Byers) and my hon. Friends the Members for North Durham (Mr. Jones), for Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East (Dr. Kumar) and for Tynemouth (Mr. Campbell), as well as my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas), who, although he does not represent the north-east, comes from my part of the north-east in Gateshead. I am pleased that the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) is here, because I am aware that the issue crosses the party divide. I pay tribute to other colleagues, including my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton and Washington, East (Mr. Kemp), who has taken a long-standing interest in the subject.
	I had a vivid realisation of just how dear the Lindisfarne gospels are to the hearts of people in the north-east some three years ago, when the originals were displayed in the Laing art gallery in Newcastle upon Tyne for three months. The number of visitors was very considerableapproaching 200,000, which, I understand, is double the number of visitors to the British Library in the same period. Having been one of the people who stood in line to view the gospels on that occasion, I well remember the excitement and exhilaration felt by those queueing.
	It is important to stress to people from outside the north-east that the gospels, more than any other work of art, encapsulate the cultural achievement of what is described as the golden age of Northumbriathe age of Cuthbert, Aidan and the Venerable Bede. As such, the gospels are a huge and powerful symbol of the region's proud past, but I should like to argue that they can be something morean inspiration for the region's future. The campaign to secure the return of the gospels has existed for a long time, and will, I am sure, continue until success is achieved. I pay tribute in particular to the work of the Northumbrian Association, which has led an active campaign in recent years. I also acknowledge the efforts of previous Bishops of Durham and the current bishop in support of the campaign. Five years ago, the previous Bishop of Durham inaugurated a debate in the other place about the return of the gospels. Interestingly, he won the firm support of the Earl of Carlisle, whose family were connected with Sir Robert Cotton, who acquired the gospels 100 years or so after they were looted from the region at the time of the dissolution of the monasteries. It was good that someone connected to the person who bequeathed the gospels to the British Museum was calling for their return to the north-east.
	I am pleased that the press in the north-east, including The Journal in Newcastle this week, have supported the campaign to return the gospels. Indeed, a number of well-known north-east personalities, including this week Brendan Foster, who is well known to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Sport and Tourism, have spoken out in favour of their return. In any debate about the relocation of national treasures, worries are expressed about the setting of dangerous precedents and the fact that many more demands for relocation may follow. However, having visited the British Library and seen the works on display, I know that there are many works, manuscripts and books from different parts of the United Kingdom, including a fair number from the north-east of England. However, I do not know of any campaigns, and do not expect any, in favour of the relocation of those objects, which do not have the special significance or iconic status of the gospels. A helpful precedent would be an event that took place a few years ago, when the stone of Scone was returned to Scotland. It was a special object with iconic status, and its return has similarities to the case for the return of the gospels.
	I stress very strongly that the issue is not related in any way to that of the Elgin marbles, and should not be confused with itthey are completely different. The reason is obvious: the north-east is a part of the United Kingdom, and we are talking about the relocation of an item of our national heritage within our nation. Indeed, north-eastern taxpayers pay taxes towards the upkeep of the British Library just as much as taxpayers in London or anywhere else in the country do. National treasures do not lose their status as national treasures by being located outside the capital. Indeed, if the Lindisfarne gospels came back to the north-east, their status as a national treasure would be enhanced, not diminished.
	It is appropriate that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Sport and Tourism will respond to our debate, as he and I have worked together enthusiastically to promote policies of decentralisation and devolution. I therefore hope that he agrees that the Government's record in promoting decentralisation in a range of policy areas including culture is laudable. Returning the Lindisfarne gospels would work with the grain of the Government policy of ensuring active regional and decentralisation policies in the cultural sector. Moreover, returning the gospels would boost the already important tourism industry in the north-east, and thereby boost the wider north-eastern economy.
	As a Member representing part of Gateshead, I am conscious of the important link between culture and economic regeneration, which has been given dramatic emphasis in cultural developments such as the renaissance of the Gateshead quays and the important boost to the region's image provided by cultural innovations and attractions such as the angel of the north. Returning the gospels would be a significant further step in the economic regeneration of the region and the enhancement of its image, the importance of which should not be underestimated when attracting investment to the region and portraying it as an attractive region in which to work and live.
	So far, the British Library and the Government have resisted the permanent return of the gospels to the north-east and I should therefore like to attempt to forestall some of their arguments against our campaign. First, the library points to the fact that, recently, high-quality facsimiles have been available. That is true; they usefully contribute to making the gospels visible in several different locations.

Kevan Jones: My right hon. Friend knows about the connection between the gospels and St. Mary and St. Cuthbert's church in Chester-le-Street. Its fight to have a facsimile on permanent display is obviously commendable but it would add to the history trail in the north-east if the gospels were on permanent display somewhere in the north-east. That would recognise the cultural and historical significance of the north-east to the development of Christendom in this country.

Joyce Quin: I greatly appreciate my hon. Friend's point. The importance of Chester-le-Street in the story of St. Cuthbert and in that of the gospels should be commemorated in the way he suggests. However, what appeared to be a special deal between the British Library and the region on the availability of a limited number of facsimiles has been somewhat undermined by the fact that the firm responsible has produced approximately 980. They are now viewed as a commercial venture rather than a sensitive response to the region's case. Nevertheless, their existence suggests a strong case for the British Library to have a high-quality facsimile and for the originals to be located permanently in the north-east.

Alan Beith: I hope that the right hon. Lady will recognise, in pressing her powerful case, that in the view of the inhabitants of Holy Island, whence the gospels originated, the British Library has been helpful in making available a virtual version there and in supporting the presentation of information about the gospels on the island. I would not like the British Library simply to be criticised when it has given that help.

Joyce Quin: I appreciate that point and I know that people on the island value the help. The island is a tremendously important tourist asset for our region, attracting almost 1 million visitors each year. Since the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed has intervened, I acknowledge the cross-party support for the issue. The hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) has also been supportive.
	When I recently revisited the British Library and looked at the Lindisfarne gospels in the John Riblat gallery there, I was interested to note that they are not highlighted in the way that I believe that they would be if they were permanently housed in the north-east. A leaflet about the John Riblatt gallery sets out its 10 highlights but the Lindisfarne gospels are not included. The British Library understandably views them as an important manuscript and in the context of the evolution of book production. However, the Lindisfarne gospels are much more to the people of the north-east of England.
	Those who want to retain the originals in London argue that they can be kept in appropriate conditions for their conservation. However, the gospels were exhibited in the Laing art gallery without conservation problems. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will be sympathetic to the point that, if we have a decentralised cultural policy for exhibitions, we should have such a policy for cultural skills and the ability to look after objects in the region where they are found. As a Gateshead Member, I know the expertise on conserving paintings that exists in the Shipley art gallery. I am therefore sure that skills can exist in the region. Sometimes, it can appear patronising when such doubts are raised.
	I have mentioned the number of visitors on Holy Island. In Durham, there are half a million visitors a year. There was a huge turnout of support for the gospels when they were in the Laing art gallery. Therefore, I believe that the region is a very suitable location for exhibiting the gospels. Although many of our London museums are wonderful, there is often such a concentration of treasures that it is difficult to single out particular treasures in the way that the gospels when they were exhibited in the Laing art gallery so well illustrated.
	Sometimes the objection is also raised that scholars tend to congregate in the capital and they need access to the gospels. Some scholars I am sure would be able to look at the facsimile versions, but others could be attracted to the north-east, not least because we have five very good universities. The rather amusing brief on this subject provided by the Northumbrian Association says that pioneers from the north-east thoughtfully provided the railways for people to get from London to the north-east, and, through Joseph Wilson Swan, provided the electric light so that the gospels could be well viewed when they got there.
	I also note the content of parliamentary answers. For example, I have here an answer to a written question given by the former culture Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East (Alan Howarth), who mentioned having more regular displays of the original gospels in the north-east than has so far occurred.
	My right hon. Friend the Minister will understand that I want the permanent return of the gospels to the north-east. But at the same time it would be good if the Government could at least signify their willingness to have more regular displays of the original in the region, perhaps annually, or to facilitate a delegation of Members and representatives of organisations in the region to put their case to the board of the British Library.
	In her 1981 book about the Lindisfarne gospels, Janet Backhouse, then assistant keeper in the department of manuscripts in the British Library, recognised that
	this particular book has never been regarded merely as a museum curiosity of interest only to scholars . . . but has kept something of the mystique of a holy relic even into the 20th century.
	We could now add the twenty-first century. She also noted in that book that local awareness of the importance of the gospels remained very much alive.
	I conclude by telling my right hon. Friend that this would be an ideal year to decide on the permanent return of the Lindisfarne gospels, because September marks the 900th anniversary of the arrival of the body of St. Cuthbert in its permanent home in Durham cathedral. Perhaps even better, the gospels could be returned before 20 March, which is St. Cuthbert's day.
	I believe, and I am sure that many of my right hon. and hon. Friends also believe, that the case for returning the Lindisfarne gospels to the north-east is overwhelming. Therefore, I urge the Government to respond positively to our campaign.

Richard Caborn: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Joyce Quin) on securing this debate. As she said, we have stood shoulder to shoulder on the whole question of devolution, and I have no doubt that we shall do so later this year on the referendum for a Yes vote for further devolution to the north-east. There is no greater advocate for the north-east than my right hon. Friend, particularly with regard to devolution.
	I come to the subject of the debate, the Lindisfarne gospels, an issue of particular resonance to the people of the north-east. I welcome the opportunity to discuss it more fully in the House tonight.
	The Lindisfarne gospels are unique, unquestionably one of our greatest national treasures and a world heritage item. Now believed to have been created in the early part of the eighth century at the monastery of Lindisfarne, by a single author, they contain both the Latin text and the oldest surviving English example of a translation of the gospels. This remarkable work is a testament to the historic cultural diversity of the British Isles. They were created at a time when the monastery of Lindisfarne had a central role in fostering a spirit of collaboration and reconciliation during a period of great uncertainty and political changehistory does keep repeating itself. To understand the spiritual and artistic roots of the great work is to understand much about its time.
	It is both clear and right that the Lindisfarne gospels are a source of great pride to the north-east. They hold an iconic status and it is understandable why people want them to be displayed in the region. It is for that reason that my right hon. Friend views their return as important. However, I can equally appreciate the rationale behind the British Library's view.
	We do not know the location of the gospels prior to the 17th century, but by 1702, they were in the possession of the antiquary Sir Robert Cotton, whose collection was given to the nation. They were part of the founding collection of the British Museum, and were thus transferred to the British Library when it was created in 1972 as the National Library. The Lindisfarne gospels, as part of the British Library collection, are the property of the British Library Board, and they are held for the nation. The Government's view remains that the decision to return the gospels is rightly one for the British Library Board.

Stephen Byers: My point is about the role of the board. It would be helpful if my right hon. Friend could say whether there have been any discussions with the board with the purpose of achieving a meeting between the board and the delegation to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Joyce Quin) referred, because that would demonstrate his good will toward the campaign. I know that my right hon. Friend answers in a ministerial capacity, but he will have a degree of personal sympathy toward the case that is being put for the Lindisfarne gospels. May I give him a word of warning? We feel that the Government have a responsibility in the matter, and there might come a time when they will have to indicate to the British Library Board the strength of feeling not only in the region, but in a broader area than the north-eastas we can see from the attendance in the Chamberabout the rightful place of the Lindisfarne gospels.

Richard Caborn: As I have said, the matter is the responsibility of the board, not the Government. However, if my right hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West wants to lead a delegation to put points to the board, I understand that it would respond favourably to such a request. I shall tell the board and my officials tomorrow that I would welcome a meeting between a delegation led by my right hon. Friend and the board. Points about the feeling in the north-east could then be put forcefully to the board.
	As I said, the decision is one for the British Library Board. As with all our national museums and galleries, the Government have an arm's-length relationship with the British Library, under which it can, and should, take decisions about its collections and future free from political intervention.

Kevan Jones: Is not the root cause of the problem the London-centric policies in this country? I doubt whether many of the individuals on the board represent anyone apart from an elitist group of individuals representing London. Is not the fact of the matter that whatever provocations I, as an elected north-east Member, or other hon. Members might make, unless we are in the London-centric clique, the board will frankly not listen to what we will say?

Richard Caborn: I do not think that that line of thinking should be taken with the British Library Board, because it would not get an especially good reception. If I may give a little advice, I suggest that it might be more useful to keep to the facts that my right hon. Friend presented in her contribution this evening.
	The British Library Board cannot freely dispose of any artefacts within the collection to other countries or collections. It must secure those artefacts and items for successive generations. I think that most hon. Members would accept that the British Library is one of the pre-eminent libraries in the world. As my colleague, the Minister for the Arts, commented recently in another debate about cultural propertyunfortunately she cannot respond to this debate because she is on ministerial business in the Statessuch important works should be viewed within the context of institutions that have a powerful national, and international, reach.
	The British Library Board has to preserve and interpret these as well as other outstanding works in its collection. This places on the board an important responsibility. However, the British Library can, and does, take other courses of action to ensure that access to the gospels is as wide as possible, particularly for those to whom they have particular significance, namely the people of the north-east. If the meeting takes place with the board, my right hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West may be able to raise some of the points about the publicity given to the gospels that she has made in the debate.
	In recent years, the British Library has made great efforts to bring the gospels, with its other treasures, to the attention of visitors to the British Library, both on-site and online. Since the opening of the St. Pancras site, the gospels have been on permanent display in the John Ritblat gallery of treasures from the collection, under stringently controlled conditions, and placed alongside other landmarks of literary and human achievement. Entry to the gallery is free and it is open seven days a week.
	In April 2003, the library opened a new exhibition dedicated to the gospels, entitled Painted LabyrinthThe world of the Lindisfarne Gospels. This displayed the gospels in the context of other eighth century artefacts. The exhibition was a huge success, both critically and in terms of visitor numbers. Alongside the exhibition, the British Library produced a virtual exhibition, accessible through its website. The virtual exhibition was also hugely popular. In addition, the library is well advanced in a project to produce an electronic facsimile of the gospels on CD-ROM.
	British Library staff are also working closely with teachers in the north-east to produce gospels school packs and resource boxes. These are intended to be distributed to local schools, teaching children about the rich history of this unique part of the United Kingdom. The British Library has also been at the centre of development of innovative new technology to allow visitors, both on-site and online, unprecedented access to the library's treasures. Indeed, the development of the Turning of the Pages interactive digital display allows the visitor to look at, and turn each page virtually, allowing increased access and interpretation without in any way harming the manuscripts themselves.
	The need to care for the collections must at all times be balanced against the need to provide access, and the British Library has actively sought to loan the gospels, when it can, to the north-east. However, due to their fragility, the gospels have been on loan only five times since entering the collection. Three of those have been to the north-east over the past 20 years. As my right hon. Friend pointed out, the most recent loan was to the Laing gallery in Newcastle in 2000.
	In early 2003, the British Library made further moves to preserve the integrity of the gospels as works of art, while ensuring that they are made accessible in the north-east. The library entered into an agreement with Faksimile Verlag for the production of state of the art, museum-quality, full-colour facsimiles. Part of this agreement was to provide two facsimiles to the north-eastone to Durham cathedral and the other to Holy Island, as my right hon. Friend said. A third facsimile is on a seven-month tour of the north-east. It has already visited Bede's World in Jarrow, Hartlepool museum and Hexham abbey. Today, I understand, it is being shown to Durham county council staff before going out on a tour of schools in County Durham. While on display at Bede's World last October, visitor figures increased by a staggering 34 per cent. in comparison with October 2002. That gives a clear indication of the success of this initiative.
	The decision of how to care for the gospels must be a matter for the British Library Board. I believe that the British Library has discharged its responsibility to make these treasures publicly available with imagination and determination, and has shown that such works can be made accessible through a variety of means to perform their original rolethat of inspiring and symbolising aspects of human history and the human spirit.
	I understand the strong points that my right hon. Friend and others have made in this short debate and I hope that they will be put to the British Library Board. We will see the response to that, but I reiterate that overall responsibility rests with the British Library.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Adjourned accordingly at sixteen minutes to Eight o'clock.